[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 isundesirable to have an organ of large dimensions in the southtransept. |
| “2. | Because if a second organ be required, it might be erected, notonly without any disfigurement of the cathedral, but with advantageto its effect, in a capacious gallery over the western entrance tothe nave, where it is considered that an instrument and a choir ofsufficient power might be accommodated, and heard with strikingeffect throughout the cathedral. |
| “3. | Because, owing to the great size of the proposed organ andgallery, &c., it would have the effect of a gigantic piece offurniture out of scale with the building, and tend to destroy thesimplicity, harmony, capacity, and grandeur of the interior of thecathedral. |
| “4. | Because, as it is proposed to make use of the marble columns ofthe old screen to the choir to support the gallery for the proposedorgan, the opportunity will be lost of employing those columns (inconnexion with certain beautiful iron work, in and about the choir,and no longer required in its present situation), with strikingeffect and great economy, in the formation of the proposed newscreen to the choir of the peculiar character required. |
| “And lastly. Because if a second organ must be placed in the southtransept, the sub-committee have not had sufficient opportunity ofduly considering the design of the proposed organ-case, gallery,&c. | |