“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.