... We beg leave respectfully to add, that it is impossible to examine the minute drawings for this design, and not feel confidence in the author’s skill in Gothic Architecture; still, as the beauty of this depends upon the attention to detail, for which the architect has no rule to guide him, but must trust to his practical knowledge and good taste, we humbly, yet strongly, recommend to your Majesty, that his Drawings shall be submitted from time to time to competent judges of their effect, lest from over-confidence, negligence, or inattention in the execution of the work, we fail to obtain that result to which our just expectations have been raised.We are, however, far from thinking it advisable, should the plan, when revised and perfected, be finally approved of by your Majesty, that it shall be subject to any alteration, that may have the effect of changing its character, or of impairing its unity of design.We are aware that we are not called upon in selecting and classifying the plans for your Majesty’s approbation to make the cost of any design an object of our consideration; and we fully agree in the prudence of having abstained from requiring the competitors to furnish estimates, which would have been productive of no public advantage, whilst the trouble and expense attending them would have been a considerable bar to competition.... We are conscious that in the plan we have selected for your Majesty’s approbation, the enriched appearance of the several elevations will naturally excite suspicion, that it cannot be carried into effect but at an enormous expense. In the absence of the detail of any portion of the work, we can form no perfect idea of the architect’s intentions, but even with the minute drawings before us, we have sufficient evidence to lead us to the belief that, from the unbroken character and general uniformity of the different fronts, and external decorations being wholly unnecessary in any of the courts, no design worthy of thecountry, of equal magnitude, can offer greater facilities for economy in the execution.[62]
... We beg leave respectfully to add, that it is impossible to examine the minute drawings for this design, and not feel confidence in the author’s skill in Gothic Architecture; still, as the beauty of this depends upon the attention to detail, for which the architect has no rule to guide him, but must trust to his practical knowledge and good taste, we humbly, yet strongly, recommend to your Majesty, that his Drawings shall be submitted from time to time to competent judges of their effect, lest from over-confidence, negligence, or inattention in the execution of the work, we fail to obtain that result to which our just expectations have been raised.
We are, however, far from thinking it advisable, should the plan, when revised and perfected, be finally approved of by your Majesty, that it shall be subject to any alteration, that may have the effect of changing its character, or of impairing its unity of design.
We are aware that we are not called upon in selecting and classifying the plans for your Majesty’s approbation to make the cost of any design an object of our consideration; and we fully agree in the prudence of having abstained from requiring the competitors to furnish estimates, which would have been productive of no public advantage, whilst the trouble and expense attending them would have been a considerable bar to competition.... We are conscious that in the plan we have selected for your Majesty’s approbation, the enriched appearance of the several elevations will naturally excite suspicion, that it cannot be carried into effect but at an enormous expense. In the absence of the detail of any portion of the work, we can form no perfect idea of the architect’s intentions, but even with the minute drawings before us, we have sufficient evidence to lead us to the belief that, from the unbroken character and general uniformity of the different fronts, and external decorations being wholly unnecessary in any of the courts, no design worthy of thecountry, of equal magnitude, can offer greater facilities for economy in the execution.[62]
The proposal here made to appoint a controlling commission (which many conceived to imply a recommendation that the original commission should be continued for this purpose) was unusual, and Mr. Barry was censured by his professional brethren for not protesting against it. Probably he felt that it was impracticable; certainly it was not carried out, and he was one of the last men in the world to submit to minute or vexatious control. Meanwhile he left matters to take their course.
The Report of the Commissioners was approved by a Select Committee of the Houses. An estimate was made by the architect, aided by Messrs. Chawner and Hunt, and afterwards, by the direction of the Board of Works, tested by Messrs. Seward and Chawner. The calculated expense was about 800,000l., exclusive of furniture and fittings.[63]The period fixed for its completion (with little foresight of the difficulties that must intervene) was about six years, and on this notion was based the calculation of the architect’s remuneration, out of which arose the harassing and painful controversy, to be more particularly narrated hereafter.
All at present seemed favourable; and the general opinion of the public ratified the choice of the Commissioners. The triumph was one of which any man might feel proud; and the work, commenced by the architect at the age of forty, in the prime of life and vigour, might have been expected to be carried out as auspiciously as it had been begun.[64]
But even now the triumph was not without alloy. Professional jealousy did not sleep. Perhaps it was inevitable that some soreness should be felt by the unsuccessful competitors for so important a work. It was certainly natural that sharp criticisms should be pronounced on the selected design. But happily few architects have had to encounter such a clamour as was then raised,—a clamour which certainly passed beyond the legitimate province of artistic criticism, venturing to attack the competency and honesty of the judges, and the private character of the successful architect.
In the first instance the partisans of classical architecture raised their voices in a somewhat tardy protest against the adoption of the Gothic style. They felt it to be a death-blow to the supremacy which Greek and Roman architecture had hitherto enjoyed. An article in the ‘London and Westminster Review,’ by “B.,” stigmatized Gothic as “a mere ‘ecclesiastical style,’”and advocated a change of site, as a less evil than the local necessity for the adoptionof obnoxious Gothicism. W. R. Hamilton’s “Letters to the Earl of Elgin” embodied, in an abler and more elaborate dissertation, the same protest against that which the writer conceived to be an antique and venerable barbarism. The rising Gothic school, of course, would not suffer such artistic blasphemy to pass unnoticed. Col. Jackson, in answer to Mr. Hamilton, took a defensive line, denying a monopoly of beauty to Classical architecture, and putting forward for Gothic the plea of nationality, of picturesque or romantic beauty, and of local associations. But this tone did not content Mr. Pugin; he followed with an article in favour of Gothic, breathing a little of the more aggressive spirit of the present Gothic school. He himself had not appeared among the competitors, although one set of designs was believed to have emanated in great degree from him.[65]It will be obvious to any one who knows his designs or writings, that he must greatly have disapproved of many main principles in Mr. Barry’s designs. But the question at issue was the dignity and value of Gothic architecture generally, and he plunged into it with all the enthusiasm of his character.
All this controversy was natural and justifiable; the only objection to the plea of the Classicists was that it came too late, and the whole is interesting, chiefly as marking the important influence which this competition was felt to exercise on the progress of Gothic architecture in this country.
But the storm of personal opposition and abuse which followed cannot be so easily excused. At firstanonymous attacks appeared in newspapers on the “highly ornamented and meretricious” character of the design, on the dangerously artistic beauty of the drawings, as tending to mislead the judges, and on the incompetency of the judges themselves, who were designated as mere amateurs. Hints were even ventured upon as to the favourable disposition of the chief commissioner towards Mr. Barry. It was pronounced that the competition was a “complete failure,” and that it ought to be renewed on a different basis, and with a greater freedom of choice as to style. When the design was altered and enlarged, to suit an extension of the site, the alteration was called a plagiarism, and alleged to vitiate the selection of the judges. All this was bad enough, but it is only that to which all public men are exposed, an acknowledged drawback to the great benefit of a free press, which will exist as long as anonymous writing is recognised. If this had been all, it might have been patiently borne.
But it was not all. Far more decided and unusual measures followed. An exhibition of the unsuccessful designs was opened on March 21st, 1836, with a view to invite comparisons. Finally a meeting of the unsuccessful competitors was held, to take steps to set the award aside. The chairman (one of the most distinguished of the unsuccessful competitors) stated the case, as one in which public duty must conquer private friendship, and defy the danger of misconstruction as to the motives of action; and after some discussion it was resolved, that the award of the judges was not confirmed by the public, that theprizemen did not merit the preference which that award gave them, that, in fact, a board of amateur judges was necessarily incompetent, and that a petition should be made to be heard at the bar of the House of Commons, to show cause for a competent commission to revise the whole proceedings.
The resolutions did not pass without energetic protest, especially from Mr. (now Prof.) Donaldson. It was urged by him (as by Sir E. Cust, in a pamphlet subsequently published) with a force and truth fatal to the objectors, that all these proceedings came too late, and that those, who by competing had acknowledged the judges, could not now with any propriety vilify them, and set their decision aside.
The petition however was prepared, and presented by Mr. Hume, on June 22nd, 1836; it was grounded mainly on the fact that four Commissioners only signed the award, and the assertion that in that award considerations of expense and the conditions of competition were disregarded; its prayer was for a fresh investigation of the whole matter. This was followed up in a formal attack by Mr. Hume, on July 22nd, based on the alleged ground of the alterations made in the plan, but showing a characteristic alarm at the prospect of large expenditure. The Commissioners’ award was ably defended by Mr. Tracy (afterwards Lord Sudeley), one of their number. But the question was settled at once by a speech of Sir R. Peel, in which he pointed out, with obvious truth, that if Mr. Hume’s suggestions were adopted the “whole principle of competition would be destroyed,” and the public faith endangered; andexpressed a pity (somewhat prophetic) for the successful competitor as a man already “hunted and pursued,” “cui sua mortifera est victoria.” It was impossible to resist such an argument, even had the criticisms on the successful design been impartial, and the unpopularity of it real. But, in fact, the opposition was almost entirely professional, and in the profession itself it did not pass unquestioned. For the debate was followed by the publication of a protest of twelve competitors, against the proceedings of the original meeting of dissentients and the presentation of the petition, on the ground that the steps taken to overturn the petition were “indecorous and unprofessional,” and that the whole proceedings tended to disunion in the architectural profession. This protest was signed by Messrs. Donaldson, Angell, Kendall, Mocatta, Davies, Morgan, Wallace, Hakewill, Robinson, Blore, Lamb, and Bardwell. After this the opposition gradually died away, except in anonymous attacks.
During the whole of this time Mr. Barry, by the advice of his friends, had remained silent. He felt deeply the painful position in which he was placed, and, most of all, certain insinuations, touching not only his own character, but that of Sir E. Cust. It was asserted that he was “Sir E. Cust’s tool,” that the design in fact was that gentleman’s, and he only his draughtsman.[66]It was a relief to know thatthe Select Committee of the House of Commons, appointed to consider the question in March, 1836, gave opportunity for the following evidence from Sir E. Cust[67]—
Lord Francis Egerton.You make mention of Mr. Barry’s plan; do you mean to imply you knew it to be Mr. Barry’s plan at the time you considered it?Sir E. Cust.In answer to that question, I must say that I never had the pleasure of seeing but one design of Mr. Barry’s in my life; I knew nothing of his style, and was not even personally acquainted with him; but I had heard so much of the merits of his plan, that when No. 64 passed in review, which was not till I had seen the greater number of those which were submitted to us, I certainly had a strong suspicion, from the beauty of it, that it could be no other than Mr. Barry’s; but I had nothing in the world to lead me to this belief, excepting the superiority of the design. Neither had I a knowledge, from looking at the plans, of the authors of any of them; I made a guess, it is true, at one or two; but in each conjecture I was mistaken.... I should like to add, as I am the only one of the four Commissioners who had a personal knowledge of Mr. Barry before we entered upon our duties, that, immediately upon my receiving the intimation that my name was to be proposed as one of the Commissioners, I signified to Mr. Barry my desire that we might have no communication with each other, pending the inquiry, and that, whenever we might meet, the subject of the Plans of the Houses of Parliament should never be brought into conversation between us, which he so strictly fulfilled, that, until I saw his plan in the due course of examination, I never had the slightest glimpse of a sketch, nor the slightest hint of any kind from him or from any common friend, which would lead me to infer that No. 64 was the design of Mr. Barry.
Lord Francis Egerton.You make mention of Mr. Barry’s plan; do you mean to imply you knew it to be Mr. Barry’s plan at the time you considered it?
Sir E. Cust.In answer to that question, I must say that I never had the pleasure of seeing but one design of Mr. Barry’s in my life; I knew nothing of his style, and was not even personally acquainted with him; but I had heard so much of the merits of his plan, that when No. 64 passed in review, which was not till I had seen the greater number of those which were submitted to us, I certainly had a strong suspicion, from the beauty of it, that it could be no other than Mr. Barry’s; but I had nothing in the world to lead me to this belief, excepting the superiority of the design. Neither had I a knowledge, from looking at the plans, of the authors of any of them; I made a guess, it is true, at one or two; but in each conjecture I was mistaken.... I should like to add, as I am the only one of the four Commissioners who had a personal knowledge of Mr. Barry before we entered upon our duties, that, immediately upon my receiving the intimation that my name was to be proposed as one of the Commissioners, I signified to Mr. Barry my desire that we might have no communication with each other, pending the inquiry, and that, whenever we might meet, the subject of the Plans of the Houses of Parliament should never be brought into conversation between us, which he so strictly fulfilled, that, until I saw his plan in the due course of examination, I never had the slightest glimpse of a sketch, nor the slightest hint of any kind from him or from any common friend, which would lead me to infer that No. 64 was the design of Mr. Barry.
After evidence such as this, the calumny could be repeated no longer.
Of the silence which he observed, trying as it was, he never had cause to repent. Many of those who opposed him resumed their relations of intimacy or friendship, when the bitterness of disappointment had passed away, and could hardly have failed to regret the course which they had pursued.[68]On the other hand, the noble and generous support of the friends (most of all of Mr. Donaldson) who stood up to vindicate his character against so strong a professional array, was intensely felt at the time, and never forgotten in after-life.[69]It was the only point in the whole proceedings which he cared to remember. But the trial was a painful one, and, when the attack died away, it left a vague discontent, which bore afterwards many fruits of trouble. It deserves a record as a specimen of the drawbacks which attend on professional success. Fortunately it is an experience which in all the important competitions since opened has never had a parallel.
Section II.—These troubles having at last passedaway, and all preliminaries having been arranged, Mr. Barry entered upon his work full of energy and hope. Great public expectation had been excited; the design of the new building was generally popular, and the authorities were prepared to aid and favour its execution in the best possible manner. He did not feel the burden of the work, and the responsibility now laid upon him. For a long time his unremitting exertion was in the truest sense “a labour of love.” Had circumstances allowed of the completion of the building, in anything like the time named, and at an expense such as had been calculated, the work would perhaps have been less beautiful than it is, and would certainly have been far less important in its influence on the “Gothic revival.” But it would have been universally accepted as a brilliant success, and the architect would have been spared many troubles. As it is, the account of the progress of the building shows conclusively (what those who have experience of such works know but too well) that difficulty, controversy, and misrepresentation beset the career of one who has to work for the public service. Had all been foreseen, it cannot be doubted that Mr. Barry would gladly have faced it all in the service of his art. But he would hardly have entered on his work with so much buoyancy and hopefulness of spirit, with so much self-reliance, and so much confidence in the future.
His difficulties arose, first from the inevitable occurrence of delays, for which he was in no sense responsible, and the liberty which he claimed of modifying his design; next, from the appointment of independent authorities to superintend certain portions of the work; and lastly, from the course which the Government took in respect of his professional remuneration. No one perhaps will say of the difficulties which he experiences in life, that he does absolutely nothing to bring them upon himself: but it may be safely declared of Mr. Barry that his one object throughout was the perfection of his work, and he may claim the sympathy which belongs to enthusiastic and devoted labour in the cause of duty.
The first vote of public money was made on July 3rd, 1837, and the first portion of the building, the river-wall, was at once proceeded with. The superintendence of this work was shared by the architect with Mr. James Walker, the well-known civil engineer. A coffer dam was constructed, and the foundations of the wall laid upon concrete, which in some places is as much as twelve feet in thickness. At the very outset of the work unforeseen difficulties were encountered, and unforeseen expenses incurred. The soil of the bed of the river was found to be exceedingly treacherous, in many places little better than a quicksand, and unfortunately the same character attached to the soil under a large portion of the building. Great care however was taken with the foundations, and they were made thoroughly satisfactory; still, as an additional precaution, Mr. Barry resolved not to draw the piles of the cofferdam, as had been at first intended, but to cut them off level with the dredged bed of the river, in order that the lower part of the dam might remain as a kind of fender or outwork to the wall, protecting it againstthe scour of the river, which has in other places proved so dangerous to the stability of buildings. The wall was faced with large blocks of Aberdeen granite, and completed in 1839, and meanwhile the rest of the work proceeded, till it was brought up as nearly as possible to the level of the terrace on the river wall.
While the foundations were proceeding a commission was appointed to examine and report upon the various kinds of building stone, and select one, which should be at once thoroughly durable, and capable of being worked with tolerable ease and cheapness. The Commissioners were all distinguished men, Sir Henry (then Mr.) de la Beche, Mr. William Smith, Mr. C. H. Smith, and the architect. In 1838 they visited all the best-known quarries, and, after very careful inquiries and experiments, they presented a Report on March 16th, 1839, recommending the selection of the magnesian limestone from Bolsover Moor and its neighbourhood. It was subsequently found that the Bolsover quarries were insufficient to supply in good condition the large quantity of stone required, and for a considerable portion of the building a stone of the same general character (Anston stone) was used.
Well knowing the deleterious effect of the atmosphere (especially the London atmosphere) on all stone, excepting those which, like granite, are fit only for works of the most simple and massive design, Mr. Barry was glad to share the responsibility of the selection with men of high scientific attainment and reputation. That, in spite of all that care andscience could do, the stone has shown some signs of decay (in a degree, it may be remarked, greatly exaggerated) is well known; but it is doubtful whether any other selection would have proved more fortunate, considering all the requirements of the case.
It is strange enough, that no public ceremony was thought necessary to mark the real commencement of the most extensive and important building of the time. The first stone was laid privately, by the wife of the architect, on April 27th, 1840.
It was very unfortunate, that the site could only be taken possession of gradually, as the old buildings upon it were gradually relinquished by the public bodies occupying them, and that the exigencies of the public service demanded the piecemeal occupation of the various parts of the building, as fast as they were completed. There could be no grand “opening” of the whole building, no opportunity for forming a judgment of its various parts, in their due relation and subordination to one another. Perhaps to this was due the fact, that throughout the whole course of the work there was no public ceremonial to serve as a recognition of its importance, and of the labour and talent bestowed on its design and execution.
From April, 1840, the work proceeded with great dispatch, in spite of many peculiar difficulties. The site (as has been said) could not be at once occupied; various alterations were suggested, either by the increase of public requirements, or by the experience gained in the progress of the work. Perhaps the most serious difficulty of all was to be found in theappointment in January, 1840, of Dr. Reid to superintend the warming and ventilating of the building, and the controversies (hereafter to be alluded to) which arose from that appointment. These various causes could not but tend to delay that rapid execution which Mr. Barry had expected, and which the public service required.[70]From this delay arose the first of the many troubles, which beset him in the course of his labours, and which must always, in greater or less degree, be encountered by those who carry out works of great extent and complexity, under public authorities, and with public responsibility.
The temporary accommodation provided for the House of Lords was both insufficient and inconvenient, while their old house, which had been surrendered for the use of the House of Commons, afforded every convenience and comfort. It was natural, perhaps inevitable, that the delay in the completion of the new House of Peers should create dissatisfaction. This feeling found its vent in the appointment of a Committee of Enquiry, which began its sittings in 1844, and reported from time to time to the House. In the course of its investigations it was found that several departures from the original design (which are noticed in the next chapter) had taken place, especially in respect of the royal approach and staircase. It was allowed in evidence by Lord Sudeley (Mr. Hanbury Tracy) one of the original Commissioners of Selection, that it “never was the idea, expectation, or wish of the Commissioners, that Mr. Barry should be confined to the plan approved of.” It was contended by the architect, that the alterations were either alterations of detail, not affecting the main features of the building and not increasing the expense, or else such as were necessitated by the requirements of further accommodation by the Board of Works, and therefore having “direct or implied authority.” But the Committee judged otherwise, and called the “special attention of the House” to the fact, that “alterations had been made by the architect without due authority.”
This Report was equivalent to a public censure. Not only the decision of the Committee itself, but also the tone of much of the examination, naturally caused Mr. Barry the greatest possible mortification. Had the Government assumed the same tone in its dealings with him, it is very doubtful whether he would have been able to continue the work. But the cordial and generous support of the late Duke of Newcastle (then Earl of Lincoln and First Commissioner of the Board of Works), both set him right in public estimation, and gave him personally the greatest encouragement and comfort. His Lordship, in his evidence before the Committee, while assuming for his office the power and responsibility of a rigid control of expenditure, yet urged forcibly the necessity of allowing much scope to the architect of a great public work, and of giving him a free and liberal support. He declared his perfect accordance with Mr. Barry in all the steps hitherto taken, while (in order to meet the views of the Committee) he arrangedthat for all subsequent alterations the previous sanction of the Board of Works should be formally asked and obtained. The effect of this firm and generous support was at once visible in the milder tone of the second Report of the Lords Committee.
But the matter was not allowed to rest here. The question of the alterations made attracted attention in the House of Commons, and a Committee was appointed to investigate the matter still more closely. The result was a Report declaring that “the Committee impute no blame to Mr. Barry for the course he had taken, and have every reason to believe, that all the alterations hitherto made have conduced to the convenience and general effect of the building.” They approved (as the Lords’ Committee had done) of the new arrangement made by the Board of Works; but they did so expressly on the ground of the “misapprehension” existing as to the course hitherto pursued.
Thus the difficulty, which had seemed most formidable, passed away. It was allowed by the architect that alterations,not involving additional expense, had been made by his own authority. It is clear that, even if the requirements of the public service had not varied, many alterations must have suggested themselves in the carrying out of so great a work. It was allowed on the other side, that some measure of freedom must be granted to an architect, whose professional character and hope of future reputation were at stake, in the endeavour to make his building as perfect as possible. The only question was, whether the design, in its main features, was still a fair development of that originally selected. This beingdecided in Mr. Barry’s favour, all serious opposition was at an end, while the opposition already experienced acted perhaps as an useful corrective to his natural tendency to alteration and development of plan.
It was, no doubt, in consequence of the difficulties above noticed, that a Commission was appointed on March 17th, 1848, to “superintend the completion of the New Palace.” The Commissioners were Earl de Grey, Sir John F. Burgoyne, and T. Greene, Esq., M.P. They were to “determine upon all designs for fittings, decorations,” &c., “all modifications of plan,” “all arrangements for warming, ventilating, and lighting the building,” subject to the approval of the Treasury, whenever additional cost should be proposed. The office must have been a difficult one, between the Treasury on the one hand and the Board of Works on the other, and although their relations with the architect were of the most friendly character, I cannot find that their appointment greatly facilitated the progress of the work.
Such difficulties must be expected by all who work for the public. No one can question the right of the Houses of Lords and Commons to examine, censure, and indirectly control, those who are working for their service. But then these public servants should be left free from other interference, with undivided power and undivided responsibility.
This was not the case with Mr. Barry. It has been already said, that the most serious difficulties, which he had to encounter, arose from the appointment of various authorities to superintend certain portions of the work, without any dependence on thearchitect, and without the provision of any tribunal, to which differences between them and him could be referred for final decision. In the case of the New Palace of Westminster, as of other important buildings, experience has tended to show the difficulty (almost amounting to impossibility) of such a division of power and responsibility in the execution of any great public work. This division is likely to suggest itself to official boards or functionaries, anxious to unite all available talent and knowledge in the service of the public. Moreover, what is true in all classes of work is especially true in relation to architecture, many-sided as it is, touching on one side the domain of science, and on the other the domain of art. No architect in his senses is likely to refuse to take advice, in the many and various questions which must meet him in his work, from those who have made such special questions their peculiar study. But to divide power is to paralyse action and destroy responsibility. Even with the most honest intentions, and with the most sincere desire of a good understanding on both sides, differences of opinion must arise between co-ordinate authorities, leading to controversy, which is likely to be obstinate, in proportion to the earnestness and sense of public duty felt by both. Such was certainly Mr. Barry’s experience. The work was so important, that interference on all sides was likely; his own character was certainly one, open enough to suggestions, but ready to resist dictation.
The first serious instance of this difficulty showed itself in the long controversy, which arose betweenhim and Dr. D. B. Reid. It will be enough to glance at its leading features, and the principles which it involved.
As early as 1839 the attention of the Government and of Parliament was directed to the warming and ventilation of the New Palace generally, and especially of the two Houses themselves. Dr. Reid had for many years devoted much time and study to these subjects, and had attained considerable reputation as an authority upon them. He was accordingly consulted by the Government, and formed a plan, by which all chimneys were to be dispensed with, and all the smoke and vitiated air of every room in the building were to be carried into great shafts, forming towers in external design, in which large furnaces were to create a sufficient upward draught. Similar shafts were to convey cold air for general dispersion, and various mechanical contrivances were to aid the general action of the ventilating system.
It was generally felt at this time that some new system must be adopted for the warming and ventilating of great public buildings. Hence, the very novelty and comprehensiveness of Dr. Reid’s plan tended to recommend it to public notice, in spite of much scepticism on the part of practical men. Accordingly, in January, 1840, he was formally appointed at a fixed salary, to superintend the warming and ventilating of the New Palace. This appointment was made, without any consultation with the architect, and without any provision whatever as to the relative subordination of the two authorities thuscreated. What limit (if any) should be put to Dr. Reid’s requirements of accommodation in space and position, how they were to be reconciled with the æsthetic or constructional character of the design, where the ultimate responsibility was to lie, if the efficiency of the building were seriously affected—all these questions were left undetermined. Nor was any authority provided, to which appeal could be made, if any important difference of opinion should arise between the architect and ventilator.
Division and disagreement were the inevitable result of this state of things. In consequence of Dr. Reid’s requirements alterations became necessary in every quarter of the building. The central tower itself was originally designed to furnish a great ventilating shaft, though it was afterwards gladly retained as an architectural feature. Finally it appeared that aboutone-thirdof the whole cubic contents of the building was to be surrendered to Dr. Reid; and it was the opinion of Mr. Barry that the construction would be seriously affected by the ventilating arrangements, and especially that the “fire-proofing” ordered by the Government was all but nullified.
This led to a decisive rupture,[71]attended of course by much controversy and mutual recrimination, intowhich it would now be needless and improper to enter. The Government determined to refer the case to professional arbitration; Joseph Gwilt, Esq., was selected as arbiter. After a long and careful examination of the statements made, and papers presented by both parties, he made a report in September, 1845, stating his opinion, first, that Dr. Reid’s system, by the use of vertical flues, destroyed the fireproof character of the building, and, next, that the delay which had taken place was mainly due to the division of authority, and the want of detailed drawings explaining Dr. Reid’s views and requirements. He added a recommendation, that the whole authority over the building should be restored to the architect, but that he should be directed to call to his aid some “experts” in ventilation, and to act by their advice.
This award was one in which Dr. Reid refused to acquiesce. The matter was brought, by petition on his part, before Parliamentary Committees in the course of the next year. Various witnesses were examined, chiefly on the question whether a general scheme of ventilation could be applied to the whole building, or whether it would be advisable to ventilate the various parts separately. The final result was a report from the Lords’ Committee, stating that the only impediment to the preparation of the House of Lords for the session of 1847 arose from the delay of arrangements for warming and ventilating after the plan of Dr. D. B. Reid, and recommending that the warming and ventilating of the House of Lords be confided to Mr. Barry. So ended this long andpainful dispute, and in 1846 Dr. Reid ceased to have any official connection with the building as a whole. It was found that responsibility could not be divided; a false step had been taken, and that step it was necessary to retrace.
For a time the general care of the ventilation and lighting remained in the hands of the architect, who had the advantage of the advice of Professor Faraday, in the course which he adopted. Subsequently, the ventilation and lighting of the House of Commons were restored for a short time to Dr. Reid, but he was soon after superseded by Mr. Goldsworthy Gurney, who has since been succeeded by Dr. Percy.
Under the able management of these gentlemen, Dr. Reid’s system has been set aside, at least as far as the collection of all smoke into one shaft is concerned; and I believe that the constructional arrangements of the building have been found satisfactory. The change, however, could not be made without great difficulty, in respect of chimneys and ventilating flues, for which Sir C. Barry has been, naturally but unjustly, held responsible.
The next instance of the same difficulty arose from the appointment of an independent authority (Mr. E. B. Denison, Q.C.) to design the great clock and bells, and superintend their erection. No one can question Mr. Denison’s ability, the attention he has devoted to clocks and bells, or his real desire to do good public service. On the other hand, many besides Sir C. Barry have found serious difficulties in working with him, unless prepared to yield up their opinions entirely to his, or to submit to injuriousimputations, in the public press, and even in official correspondence. In the course of the work upon the great clock, Sir C. Barry was unfortunate enough to incur Mr. Denison’s hostility, and was assailed accordingly in no measured terms.[72]Several of her Majesty’s Ministers, filling the office of First Commissioner of Works—Lord John Manners, Sir W. Molesworth, and Mr. W. Cowper—shared this misfortune, and were attacked in a similar way; and Professor Airy, at whose instance Mr. Denison was appointed, and who at first acted with him as a joint referee, finally found himself compelled to resign his position.
But it is needless to resuscitate a defunct controversy. I shall only refer to it, so far as I am forced to do so by a “History of the Westminster Clock,”[73]written by Mr. Denison before, but published since, Sir C. Barry’s death. I shall notice merely its statements of fact; but it is right to remark, that, in so doing, I labour under considerable disadvantage. There are indeed many facts, with which Sir C. Barry alone was acquainted, and many points, on which he alone could have declared his opinions and motives of action. The case shall be sketched out here as it is contained in public documents. Those who may wish to refer to these documents will find them in Parliamentary Papers, No. 500 of 1852, No. 436 of 1855, and No. 553 of 1860.
As the clock-tower rose above the building it became necessary to provide for the construction of the great clock and bells. They were to be of enormous size, and required the best possible workmanship.
With regard to the great clock Mr. Barry, by the desire of the Board of Works, applied to Mr. Vulliamy, of Pall Mall, to inquire whether he would be willing to furnish plans, specification, calculations, and working drawings, for the guidance of the Government, it being distinctly understood, that no promise that he should make the clock was to be implied in this proceeding. Mr. Vulliamy agreed to do so, for a fee of one hundred guineas if he should be employed to make the clock, and for a fee of two hundred guineas should such not be the case. On April 24th, 1844, Mr. Barry was instructed by the Board of Works to accept Mr. Vulliamy’s offer.
Subsequently however (in July, 1846) the Government thought it better that a work of such magnitude should be open to a select competition by Mr. Vulliamy, Mr. Whitehurst of Derby, and Mr. E. T. Dent of London, the conditions to be prescribed by the Astronomer Royal, and the plans subjected to his arbitration.
Mr. Vulliamy however declined to compete on these conditions, conceiving that the Astronomer Royal was already committed to approval of Mr. Dent, by a letter written in October, 1844, to the Gresham Committee, stating that he considered the Royal Exchange Clock “the best in the world,” and another letter addressed to Mr. Dent himself, onJuly 22nd, 1845, containing a declaration, that, in the event of his being consulted as to a clock for the New Palace at Westminster, he should state without hesitation “that he considered Mr. Dent the most proper person to be entrusted with the construction of a clock of similar pretensions” to that at the Royal Exchange. It is needless to say, that this letter was written, when Professor Airy had no idea of being officially chosen as referee in the matter. Professor Airy had however, in a letter to Lord Canning, on June 22nd, 1846, recommended that the work should be given to Mr. Dent, “without inquiry of other makers,” unless his price appeared excessive, in which case he recommended that application should be made to Mr. Whitehurst and to Mr. Vulliamy. For these reasons Mr. Vulliamy objected to accept the Astronomer Royal as sole referee, though he would readily have competed, if the matter were referred to others conjointly with him.[74]
Accordingly, acting on his original instructions, he sent in his drawings and specification in August, 1846, with some remarks on the conditions laid down by the Astronomer Royal. Mr. Dent (declining, of course, to be guided by these drawings) and Mr. Whitehurst also, sent in drawings and specifications, with tenders for the execution of the work. The Astronomer Royal (who still continued to be solereferee) made a report on May 18th, 1847, recommending that Mr. Dent’s tender (for 1600l.) be accepted, both on account of its lowness in comparison with Mr. Whitehurst’s (for 3373l.) and for certain reasons, which led him to believe that the work would be best executed in his hands.
As Mr. Vulliamy had declined competition, he merely added some remarks on his drawings, and on the objection which he had made to the appointment of the Astronomer Royal as sole referee.
Mr. Dent did not as yet receive the formal appointment to make the great clock. He had competed on the understanding that, if any other clocks in the building were supplied by tender or competition, his name should be included among the competitors. Some misunderstanding with regard to clocks ordered for the House of Lords, in October, 1846 (before the adjudication of the Astronomer Royal) from Mr. Vulliamy, led to his withdrawal of his name from the whole competition; but, on explanation of the circumstances, he saw reason to cancel this withdrawal, and continued the preparation of the great clock.
In May 31st, 1848, Mr. E. B. Denison first appears on the scene, in an eminently characteristic letter to Lord Morpeth, accusing Mr. Barry of “acting in concert with Mr. Vulliamy” to set aside the decision of the Astronomer Royal, endeavouring to persuade Lord Morpeth that “he is familiar with the art of clockmaking, contriving to prevent the clock being ordered,” and the like. No proofs are given of these statements, made as they are in a letter to Lord Morpeth, to be submitted to the Commissionersfor the New Palace. At the same time, August, 1848, Mr. Vulliamy applied for the two hundred guineas, which was to be his full payment, offering to return one hundred guineas in case of his being employed; but the Commissioners declined to recommend a payment of more than one hundred guineas, on the ground, that there was “no probability of any decision being required at present relative to the person to be employed to make the clock,” (June, 1849).
The matter still lingered, till towards the end of 1851 Mr. Denison was requested by Lord Seymour, the Chief Commissioner of Works, apparently at the suggestion of the Astronomer Royal, to act with that gentleman in the matter of the clock. He at once (to use his own words) examined, so far as was possible, the various plans, and “was soon convinced that none of them would do.” He therefore drew up a general specification, accepted by Mr. Dent, in accordance with which the clock was to be made under the direction of Professor Airy and Mr. Denison, for 1800l., and within the space of two years. This arrangement was formally sanctioned by the Board of Works, and thus for the first time the matter was put fairly in train.
The clock-tower had been in progress since 1843, and was now about 150 feet from the ground. The internal shaft (11 feet by 8 feet 6 in.) was of the same area on plan all the way up, and no hint had been given, that it was not amply sufficient for any clock which was likely to be required. But it now appeared, that the plan of the internal shaft was insome points inconsistent with Mr. Dent’s plan of the clock, and some modifications which appear to have been inconsiderable,[75]were made by Mr. Dent, in order to remove that difficulty. It is to be observed, that the architectural arrangements were all made before the clock was ordered at all.
After this the work proceeded steadily, and (as Professor Airy was abroad for some time) it proceeded under Mr. Denison’s sole direction. So long as Professor Airy was able to take an active part in the work, no difficulty seems to have occurred. But now a proposal was made by Lord John Manners (who had succeeded Lord Seymour) that some other referees should be appointed, and that the architect should be one of them. This proposal seems to have greatly excited Mr. Denison’s wrath; but, considering the trouble which Mr. Barry had already had from the appointment of persons to carry out works on the building, independent of himself and uncontrolled by any superior power, considering also the temper which Mr. Denison’s letters had shown, and the unreserved way in which he had identified his interests with those of Mr. Dent, it will probably not appear so entirely ridiculous or unreasonable to others.
As soon as the arrangements were made public, a memorial of the “masters, wardens, and court of assistants of the Clockmakers’ Company of the City of London” was presented to Lord John Manners, to the following effect, that, the original design and plan of the clock being altered, a fresh competition oughtto take place, but that, if this was impossible, some committee of referees should be appointed in conjunction with the Astronomer Royal and Mr. Denison, including the architect and Sir J. (or Mr. George) Rennie,as originally proposed by Mr. Dent. To this memorial the natural answer was given, viz., that the arrangements were already definitely made with Mr. Dent for the construction of the clock, but that the question of additional referees was under the consideration of the Chief Commissioner. A rejoinder was, however, written by Mr. Denison, referring the memorial to Mr. Vulliamy and “a certain set of clockmakers,” instead of treating it as, what it certainly was, an official document of the Company, and containing imputations of motives of underhand conduct against Lord J. Manners, Sir C. Barry, &c., which, as being incapable of formal proof or formal refutation, it is not usual to admit into official documents. Lord John Manners naturally declined to enter into controversy, and proposed Mr. Robert Stephenson as additional referee; but he did not think fit to press the proposal, when it was met by Mr. Denison with a declaration, that the Astronomer Royal and himself would resign, rather than admit of any change in the footing on which they had consented to act.
At this time Mr. Dent died, and his successor, Mr. F. Dent, claimed to succeed to the contract. Some doubt was entertained by the Government, based on legal opinions, whether they were bound to accept this succession. They did not, however, desire to injure Mr. Dent; they were prepared at once to make a new contract, based on the terms of theexisting specification, with this single additional provision, that the approval of the clock should “be vested in the Chief Commissioner (then Sir W. Molesworth) acting under the advice and with the assistance of the Astronomer Royal and Mr. Denison, or either of them, should any difference of opinion arise between the two.” This reason of this provision will be obvious from a letter of the Astronomer Royal dated a few days before (November 7th, 1853), in which he stated, that, since Mr. Denison’s appointment at his suggestion, subsequent intercourse, while it had “confirmed his high opinion of that gentleman’s mechanical ingenuity and horological knowledge, had shown that their ideas of the mode of conducting public business were very different, and had at last forced on him the conviction that they could not with advantage profess to act in concert.” Professor Airy had therefore tendered his resignation. After an interview, the Chief Commissioner induced him to withdraw the tender; but it would not appear that he took any active part in the subsequent proceedings.
It however proved that the Board had indirectly recognised Mr. F. Dent as succeeding to the contract. The law officers of the Crown, though declaring that this “did not alter the legal bearings of the case,” advised that the contract should be allowed to go on as before, but that the Board should insist on “the substitution of some other referee or referees.” This last recommendation was not insisted upon, and all accordingly proceeded on the old footing.
The clock was completed by Mr. Dent in 1855,and 1600l.was paid him on account. It however could not be hoisted to its place, and much discussion took place on the question, whether the tower was waiting for the clock, or the clock waiting for the tower. In fact, neither of these things was true. Both were waiting for the bells. As will be seen below, the tower was roofed in by Sir Charles in 1856, after he had waited in vain for some information about the bells, the tenders for which were accepted in 1855, but which were not finally ready till 1859. This necessitated the taking up the bells by the clock shaft, and so the clock could not be fixed till 1859.
Its troubles were not yet over. The weight of the hands was too great, and a vehement controversy, carried on in the usual spirit, took place in the ‘Times’ as to whether the blame of this did or did not rest upon Sir C. Barry.[76]Finally the difficulty was remedied, and the clock has been going on well up to the present time. As a piece of workmanship, it appears to do great credit both to Mr. Denison and to Mr. Dent.
Into the questions connected with the casting and the fate of the great bell it is here unnecessary to enter. All that Sir C. Barry had to do with it was that he recommended the appointment of Mr. Denison and the Rev. W. Taylor, F.S.A., as referees to superintend the formation of the bell; further proposing that certain bell-founders, Messrs. Mears, Warner, Taylor, and Murphy, should be invited to tender for it; but that if one founder alone should beselected, Mr. Mears should be chosen. It is clear from this communication that he fully recognised Mr. Denison’s merits, and was not disposed to allow any personal misunderstandings to interfere with public advantage.
The recommendation was accepted, with the addition of the Chief Commissioner of Works as an official referee, with a view (I presume) to avoid the difficulties which had occurred in the case of the great clock, and to give the head of the department, who had to be responsible for the work, some opportunity of knowing what was going on. Mr. Denison rejected the proposal, on the ground of the Chief Commissioner’s incompetency as to technical knowledge, and the probability that he would “act under the advice of somebody behind the scenes.” A delay accordingly ensued; but in August, 1855, Lord Llanover (then Sir B. Hall), who had become Commissioner of Works, appointed Mr. Denison, Mr. Taylor, and Professor Wheatstone to superintend the casting of the great bell. Six months before Sir C. Barry had informed the Board that the roof of the tower was ready, and, after waiting in vain for information about the bells, he was obliged to cover it in at the beginning of 1856.[77]This necessitated the carrying up the bells inside the tower, which was not originally intended by the architect. The interior was not under his control. Originally Dr. Reid intendeda part of it for an air-shaft, and Mr. Gurney subsequently, against the architect’s wishes, used this part for a smoke-flue. The space available was about 8 ft. 6 in. in its smallest dimensions. Some difficulty occurred in consequence, of which much has been made. But it was obviated by the simple expedient of an alteration in the shape of the bell.
The first “Big Ben” was cast by Messrs. Warner, in August, 1856. In November it was brought to Westminster for trial, previous to its being hoisted into its place. It required a clapper of unusual weight, and in a short time it cracked under the test in October, 1857.
The bell was then re-cast under the direction of Messrs. Mears, in April, 1858. It was hoisted to its place, and tried with the clapper in November, 1858. It began to strike in July, 1859, and on the 28th of September it was found to be cracked. Into the charges and recriminations between Mr. Denison and Messrs. Mears, and the consequent action brought by the latter against the former, it is not at all necessary to enter. All that Sir C. Barry had to do with the matter was, that Mr. Quarm, his clerk of the works, and Mr. James, the engineer, gave their best assistance in the fixing and hoisting of the bell, and in suggesting methods for overcoming any difficulties which presented themselves. It is only needful to remark, that the tone of the controversies which followed throws some light on the causes of the difficulties and troubles, to which it has been necessary to refer in the history of the great clock. In themselves these only formed one of the many instances inwhich Sir C. Barry, during the erection of the New Palace, suffered from the appointment of gentlemen, eminent in their own departments, to superintend works, in connexion with the building, and in perfect independence of its architect. But fortunately every such instance did not lead to so fierce a controversy as that which raged for a time about the clock and bells.[78]
There was one other case of divided responsibility, important as affecting the æsthetic character of the building, to which I must draw attention, as having caused Sir C. Barry much disappointment and anxiety. On this occasion, however, the architect experienced neither depreciation nor discourtesy; he sympathized with the object aimed at, and had reason to admire, in connexion with it, the knowledge, taste, and enlightened interest displayed by H.R.H. the late Prince Consort. Indeed, the qualities which the Prince brought to bear on the discharge of every duty undertaken by him, were perhaps never moreconspicuous than in his many labours for the encouragement of the fine arts in this country.
As the building advanced, the public attention was drawn to the great opportunity, which it offered for the encouragement of the arts of painting and sculpture. His Royal Highness, who frequently visited the work, and took considerable interest in its progress, was most anxious that this opportunity should not be lost, and at the same time felt, that only by great care and consultation of various authorities could it be used to the best advantage. Accordingly in Nov. 1841 a Royal Commission (the “Fine Arts Commission”) was appointed, under the presidency of His Royal Highness, and consisting of the following members:—Lord Lyndhurst, the Duke of Sutherland, the Marquis of Lansdowne, Earl of Lincoln, Earl of Shrewsbury, Earl of Aberdeen, Lord John Russell, Viscount Palmerston, Viscount Melbourne, Lord Ashburton, Lord Colborne, The Right Hon. Charles Shaw Lefevre (Speaker of the House of Commons), Sir R. Peel, Sir James Graham, Sir R. H. Inglis, B. Hawes, Esq. jun., Henry Gale Knight, Esq., Henry Hallam, Esq., S. Rogers, Esq., G. Vivian, Esq., Thomas Wyse, Esq. To these were afterwards added the names of Lord Mahon (now Earl Stanhope), T. B. Macaulay, Esq. (afterwards Lord Macaulay), Lord Willoughby d’Eresby, Lord Canning, Lord Morpeth, Sir B. Hall, and the Right Hon. J. Evelyn Denison (Speaker of the House of Commons), Lord John Manners, and the Hon. W. Cowper. Sir C. Eastlake was appointed Secretary.
It is obvious, from a glance at the names of the Commissioners, that great care had been taken to represent on the Board, not only rank and official knowledge, but also artistic and literary excellence. But it will be noticed, that the name of the architect of the building does not occur on the Commission. It was thought, perhaps, that, as having to carry out the views of the Commission, he ought for technical reasons to have no seat upon it. It might also have been supposed, that he would be inclined to look at things too much from one point of view, and endeavour to subordinate painting and sculpture too much to the architecture of the building; so that, in the almost inevitable rivalry of the arts, he would not be a disinterested party. But it may be questioned whether technical propriety should have been allowed to override practical convenience. And it is not likely that a single voice on the Board would have been able to secure to architectural claims more than their due share of attention.
He himself greatly regretted his exclusion, and was inclined to consider it as a slight. He knew that practical questions must constantly arise, on which a few words of information from him might save long discussions, and perhaps serious mistakes. He felt also that few could have studied the building, as a whole, so thoroughly as he had done; that few therefore could be better qualified to give an opinion as to the nature and disposition of works of art, which should not only be beautiful in themselves, but should harmonize with one another, and with the building on which they were “set,” so as to produce a magnificent whole.[79]He was, of course, examined by the Commission, and was invited to lay his views freely and completely before it. But this was a very different thing from the opportunities of frequent suggestion and free discussion, which he would have enjoyed, had it been thought right to place him on the Commission. It will perhaps be interesting to quote some passages from the Report which he prepared on this occasion, showing the ideal towards which he desired, gradually but systematically, to tend.