The life and works of Sir Charles Barry

by Alfred Barry

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 the appointment 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 arranged that 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 being decided 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 the architect, 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 between him and Dr. D. B. Reid. It will be enough to glance at its leading features, and the principles which it involved.