The life and works of Sir Charles Barry

by Alfred Barry

The first class of designs is not very numerous compared with the second. This might have been partly accidental, but it probably was due in great measure to his own fertility of resource, and the keen eye which he had for the capabilities of existing buildings. As he seldom admired any building unreservedly, so he seldom despaired of any, even of those which most men would have condemned as hopeless. When he was consulted therefore by public bodies or by private individuals, who needed additional accommodation, or desired greater architectural effect, he could generally strike out some plan of alteration which satisfied both requirements, while it appeared less costly than the erection of a new building, and preserved something of the charm of old associations. It may be questioned whether more real originality is shown in the design of what is absolutely new, than in the power of impressing a new character on old materials. But he used to regret the comparative fewness of his opportunities of erecting new buildings, unconscious that it was in some degree due to his remarkable power of giving fresh life to the old.

(A). It is, however, in his original buildings that his principles of Italian design can be most clearly traced. Those principles remained essentially unaltered. No competent eye can ever fail to recognise his hand. But he had certainly different “manners,” and these are most distinctly impressed upon the Italian buildings which he erected de novo. The first manner is that of his Travellers’ and Reform Clubs, and to it belong the new wing which he erected at Trentham and the Manchester Athenæum. The second is marked in Bridgewater House. The third is distinctly seen in one of his last designs, the design for the erection of the Halifax Town-hall, which was carried out after his death. It must, of course, remain uncertain how far it would have been modified in process of execution, had he lived to see the work complete.

Reform Club.—The Travellers’ Club was completed in 1831. Since that time the great competition for the New Palace at Westminster had been decided, and his success had secured him a place in the first rank of British architects. In 1837 he was called upon to enter a select competition with Messrs. Basevi, Blore, Burton, Cockerell, and Smirke, for the erection of the Reform Club. His design was almost unanimously chosen. He felt some difficulty in designing a building of such superior magnitude in the same Italian style, side by side with his favourite Travellers’. He would gladly have varied it as much as possible, but he could not bring himself to depart from the “astylar” style; for of engaged orders he never thoroughly approved. The Farnese Palace was doubtless in his mind during the conception of this design, and a charge of plagiarism has been grounded upon certain superficial resemblances, in the same way and with the same injustice as in the comparison of the Travellers’ Club with the Villa Pandolfini.[44]

In this Club-house, as the sides were liable to be seen at the same time, an almost complete uniformity

of design was preserved throughout the three visible fronts. To complete breaks of design under such circumstances he had a rooted objection; he would rather risk monotony, than break unity and give the effect (so often seen in Venice) of façades merely “applied” to a building. Here, as in the Travellers’ Club, simplicity, solidity, and repose, were the great objects aimed at. The entrance seemed to some to want importance; he tried (in deference to advice) columns and pilasters; a porch he would not hear of, for it seemed to him a mere excrescence. But the design so enlarged seemed out of harmony with the windows; it appeared to break the unity of the design, and the entrance was therefore left in its present simplicity.

In criticizing his own design, he greatly regretted that he could not give to his upper windows an importance commensurate with that of the lower stories, such as is found in the three full stories of the Farnese Palace. He also took blame to himself because, for want of some relief, the columns flanking his windows appeared to be embedded in the wall. He would have gladly given more boldness to the dressings of the lower windows, and possibly more size to the windows throughout. With these exceptions, he continued satisfied with his design, and public opinion has certainly continued to confirm that satisfaction.

In the original plan the central portion of the interior was occupied by an open Italian cortile. A roof thrown over this converted it into the magnificent Central Hall, which is now one of the greatest ornaments of the building. A rival design (Mr. Cockerell’s) had a Central Hall. It is possible that this may have first suggested the idea to the successful architect. But considerations of convenience and suitability to an English climate would have been sufficient to recommend such a step, and little change after all was made, except the addition of the roof.

It will be easily seen that the grand effect of a Central Hall, which became afterwards a leading feature in his Italian designs, cannot be obtained without considerable sacrifice. It is liable to interfere with the due provision of light and air for the basement story, and, in spite of much skill in contrivance, this defect may be traced in the case of the Reform Club. It is likely also to interfere with the existence of a grand central staircase, as it does in this case and at Bridgewater House. But it was a peculiarity of Mr. Barry’s plans that he seldom gave up much space to a grand staircase. As afterwards at the New Palace at Westminster, he was apt to consider such space as comparatively wasted, and to think a more effective use might be made of it for a great hall or gallery. At the Reform Club certainly he never regretted the sacrifice needful to secure his magnificent Central Hall.