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 adoption of 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 first anonymous 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 the prizemen 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; and expressed 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 that the 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?