The life and works of Sir Charles Barry

by Alfred Barry

As soon as the arrangements were made public, a memorial of the “masters, wardens, and court of assistants of the Clockmakers’ Company of the City of London” was presented to Lord John Manners, to the following effect, that, the original design and plan of the clock being altered, a fresh competition ought to take place, but that, if this was impossible, some committee of referees should be appointed in conjunction with the Astronomer Royal and Mr. Denison, including the architect and Sir J. (or Mr. George) Rennie, as originally proposed by Mr. Dent. To this memorial the natural answer was given, viz., that the arrangements were already definitely made with Mr. Dent for the construction of the clock, but that the question of additional referees was under the consideration of the Chief Commissioner. A rejoinder was, however, written by Mr. Denison, referring the memorial to Mr. Vulliamy and “a certain set of clockmakers,” instead of treating it as, what it certainly was, an official document of the Company, and containing imputations of motives of underhand conduct against Lord J. Manners, Sir C. Barry, &c., which, as being incapable of formal proof or formal refutation, it is not usual to admit into official documents. Lord John Manners naturally declined to enter into controversy, and proposed Mr. Robert Stephenson as additional referee; but he did not think fit to press the proposal, when it was met by Mr. Denison with a declaration, that the Astronomer Royal and himself would resign, rather than admit of any change in the footing on which they had consented to act.

At this time Mr. Dent died, and his successor, Mr. F. Dent, claimed to succeed to the contract. Some doubt was entertained by the Government, based on legal opinions, whether they were bound to accept this succession. They did not, however, desire to injure Mr. Dent; they were prepared at once to make a new contract, based on the terms of the existing specification, with this single additional provision, that the approval of the clock should “be vested in the Chief Commissioner (then Sir W. Molesworth) acting under the advice and with the assistance of the Astronomer Royal and Mr. Denison, or either of them, should any difference of opinion arise between the two.” This reason of this provision will be obvious from a letter of the Astronomer Royal dated a few days before (November 7th, 1853), in which he stated, that, since Mr. Denison’s appointment at his suggestion, subsequent intercourse, while it had “confirmed his high opinion of that gentleman’s mechanical ingenuity and horological knowledge, had shown that their ideas of the mode of conducting public business were very different, and had at last forced on him the conviction that they could not with advantage profess to act in concert.” Professor Airy had therefore tendered his resignation. After an interview, the Chief Commissioner induced him to withdraw the tender; but it would not appear that he took any active part in the subsequent proceedings.

It however proved that the Board had indirectly recognised Mr. F. Dent as succeeding to the contract. The law officers of the Crown, though declaring that this “did not alter the legal bearings of the case,” advised that the contract should be allowed to go on as before, but that the Board should insist on “the substitution of some other referee or referees.” This last recommendation was not insisted upon, and all accordingly proceeded on the old footing.

The clock was completed by Mr. Dent in 1855, and 1600l. was paid him on account. It however could not be hoisted to its place, and much discussion took place on the question, whether the tower was waiting for the clock, or the clock waiting for the tower. In fact, neither of these things was true. Both were waiting for the bells. As will be seen below, the tower was roofed in by Sir Charles in 1856, after he had waited in vain for some information about the bells, the tenders for which were accepted in 1855, but which were not finally ready till 1859. This necessitated the taking up the bells by the clock shaft, and so the clock could not be fixed till 1859.

Its troubles were not yet over. The weight of the hands was too great, and a vehement controversy, carried on in the usual spirit, took place in the ‘Times’ as to whether the blame of this did or did not rest upon Sir C. Barry.[76] Finally the difficulty was remedied, and the clock has been going on well up to the present time. As a piece of workmanship, it appears to do great credit both to Mr. Denison and to Mr. Dent.

Into the questions connected with the casting and the fate of the great bell it is here unnecessary to enter. All that Sir C. Barry had to do with it was that he recommended the appointment of Mr. Denison and the Rev. W. Taylor, F.S.A., as referees to superintend the formation of the bell; further proposing that certain bell-founders, Messrs. Mears, Warner, Taylor, and Murphy, should be invited to tender for it; but that if one founder alone should be selected, Mr. Mears should be chosen. It is clear from this communication that he fully recognised Mr. Denison’s merits, and was not disposed to allow any personal misunderstandings to interfere with public advantage.

The recommendation was accepted, with the addition of the Chief Commissioner of Works as an official referee, with a view (I presume) to avoid the difficulties which had occurred in the case of the great clock, and to give the head of the department, who had to be responsible for the work, some opportunity of knowing what was going on. Mr. Denison rejected the proposal, on the ground of the Chief Commissioner’s incompetency as to technical knowledge, and the probability that he would “act under the advice of somebody behind the scenes.” A delay accordingly ensued; but in August, 1855, Lord Llanover (then Sir B. Hall), who had become Commissioner of Works, appointed Mr. Denison, Mr. Taylor, and Professor Wheatstone to superintend the casting of the great bell. Six months before Sir C. Barry had informed the Board that the roof of the tower was ready, and, after waiting in vain for information about the bells, he was obliged to cover it in at the beginning of 1856.[77] This necessitated the carrying up the bells inside the tower, which was not originally intended by the architect. The interior was not under his control. Originally Dr. Reid intended a part of it for an air-shaft, and Mr. Gurney subsequently, against the architect’s wishes, used this part for a smoke-flue. The space available was about 8 ft. 6 in. in its smallest dimensions. Some difficulty occurred in consequence, of which much has been made. But it was obviated by the simple expedient of an alteration in the shape of the bell.

The first “Big Ben” was cast by Messrs. Warner, in August, 1856. In November it was brought to Westminster for trial, previous to its being hoisted into its place. It required a clapper of unusual weight, and in a short time it cracked under the test in October, 1857.

The bell was then re-cast under the direction of Messrs. Mears, in April, 1858. It was hoisted to its place, and tried with the clapper in November, 1858. It began to strike in July, 1859, and on the 28th of September it was found to be cracked. Into the charges and recriminations between Mr. Denison and Messrs. Mears, and the consequent action brought by the latter against the former, it is not at all necessary to enter. All that Sir C. Barry had to do with the matter was, that Mr. Quarm, his clerk of the works, and Mr. James, the engineer, gave their best assistance in the fixing and hoisting of the bell, and in suggesting methods for overcoming any difficulties which presented themselves. It is only needful to remark, that the tone of the controversies which followed throws some light on the causes of the difficulties and troubles, to which it has been necessary to refer in the history of the great clock. In themselves these only formed one of the many instances in which Sir C. Barry, during the erection of the New Palace, suffered from the appointment of gentlemen, eminent in their own departments, to superintend works, in connexion with the building, and in perfect independence of its architect. But fortunately every such instance did not lead to so fierce a controversy as that which raged for a time about the clock and bells.[78]

There was one other case of divided responsibility, important as affecting the æsthetic character of the building, to which I must draw attention, as having caused Sir C. Barry much disappointment and anxiety. On this occasion, however, the architect experienced neither depreciation nor discourtesy; he sympathized with the object aimed at, and had reason to admire, in connexion with it, the knowledge, taste, and enlightened interest displayed by H.R.H. the late Prince Consort. Indeed, the qualities which the Prince brought to bear on the discharge of every duty undertaken by him, were perhaps never more conspicuous than in his many labours for the encouragement of the fine arts in this country.