The life and works of Sir Charles Barry

by Alfred Barry

As the building advanced, the public attention was drawn to the great opportunity, which it offered for the encouragement of the arts of painting and sculpture. His Royal Highness, who frequently visited the work, and took considerable interest in its progress, was most anxious that this opportunity should not be lost, and at the same time felt, that only by great care and consultation of various authorities could it be used to the best advantage. Accordingly in Nov. 1841 a Royal Commission (the “Fine Arts Commission”) was appointed, under the presidency of His Royal Highness, and consisting of the following members:—Lord Lyndhurst, the Duke of Sutherland, the Marquis of Lansdowne, Earl of Lincoln, Earl of Shrewsbury, Earl of Aberdeen, Lord John Russell, Viscount Palmerston, Viscount Melbourne, Lord Ashburton, Lord Colborne, The Right Hon. Charles Shaw Lefevre (Speaker of the House of Commons), Sir R. Peel, Sir James Graham, Sir R. H. Inglis, B. Hawes, Esq. jun., Henry Gale Knight, Esq., Henry Hallam, Esq., S. Rogers, Esq., G. Vivian, Esq., Thomas Wyse, Esq. To these were afterwards added the names of Lord Mahon (now Earl Stanhope), T. B. Macaulay, Esq. (afterwards Lord Macaulay), Lord Willoughby d’Eresby, Lord Canning, Lord Morpeth, Sir B. Hall, and the Right Hon. J. Evelyn Denison (Speaker of the House of Commons), Lord John Manners, and the Hon. W. Cowper. Sir C. Eastlake was appointed Secretary.

It is obvious, from a glance at the names of the Commissioners, that great care had been taken to represent on the Board, not only rank and official knowledge, but also artistic and literary excellence. But it will be noticed, that the name of the architect of the building does not occur on the Commission. It was thought, perhaps, that, as having to carry out the views of the Commission, he ought for technical reasons to have no seat upon it. It might also have been supposed, that he would be inclined to look at things too much from one point of view, and endeavour to subordinate painting and sculpture too much to the architecture of the building; so that, in the almost inevitable rivalry of the arts, he would not be a disinterested party. But it may be questioned whether technical propriety should have been allowed to override practical convenience. And it is not likely that a single voice on the Board would have been able to secure to architectural claims more than their due share of attention.

He himself greatly regretted his exclusion, and was inclined to consider it as a slight. He knew that practical questions must constantly arise, on which a few words of information from him might save long discussions, and perhaps serious mistakes. He felt also that few could have studied the building, as a whole, so thoroughly as he had done; that few therefore could be better qualified to give an opinion as to the nature and disposition of works of art, which should not only be beautiful in themselves, but should harmonize with one another, and with the building on which they were “set,” so as to produce a magnificent whole.[79] He was, of course, examined by the Commission, and was invited to lay his views freely and completely before it. But this was a very different thing from the opportunities of frequent suggestion and free discussion, which he would have enjoyed, had it been thought right to place him on the Commission. It will perhaps be interesting to quote some passages from the Report which he prepared on this occasion, showing the ideal towards which he desired, gradually but systematically, to tend.

“With reference to the interior of the new Houses of Parliament generally, I would suggest that the walls of the several halls, galleries, and corridors of approach, as well as the various public apartments throughout the building, should be decorated with paintings having reference to events in the history of the country, and that those paintings should be placed in compartments formed by such a suitable arrangement of the architectural design of the interior, as will best promote their effective union with the arts of sculpture and architecture. With this view, I should consider it to be of the utmost importance that the paintings should be wholly free from gloss on the surface, so that they may be perfectly seen, and fully understood, from all points of view, that all other portions of the plain surfaces of the walls should be covered with suitable architectonic decoration, or diapered enrichment in colour, occasionally heightened with gold and blended with armorial bearings, badges, cognizances, and other heraldic insignia emblazoned in their proper colours. That such of the halls as are groined should have their vaults decorated in a similar manner, with the addition occasionally of subjects, or works of art, so interwoven with the diapered ground as not to disturb the harmony, or the effect of the architectonic decorations generally, or interfere with the elementary features of the architectural composition. That such of the ceilings as are flat should be formed into compartments by moulded ribs, enriched with carved heraldic and Tudor decorations. That these ceilings should be relieved by positive colour and gilding, and occasionally by gold grounds with diaper enrichments, legends, and heraldic devices in colour. That the screens, pillars, corbels, niches, dressings of the windows, and other architectural decorations, should be painted to harmonize with the paintings and diapered decorations of the walls generally, and be occasionally relieved with positive colour and gilding. That the door-jambs and fireplaces should be constructed of British marbles of suitable quality and colour, highly polished and occasionally relieved by colour and gilding in their mouldings and sculptured enrichments. That the floors of the several halls, galleries, and corridors should be formed of encaustic tiles, bearing heraldic decorations and other enrichments in colours, laid in margins and compartments, in combination with polished British marbles, and that the same description of marbles should also be employed for the steps of the several staircases. That the walls to the height of from eight to ten feet should be lined with oak framing, containing shields with armorial bearings emblazoned in their proper colours, and that an oak seat should in all cases be placed against such framing. That the windows of the several halls, galleries, and corridors should be glazed doubly, for the purpose of tempering the light and preventing the direct rays of the sun from interfering with the effect of the internal decorations generally; for this purpose the outer glazing is proposed to be of ground glass in single plates, and the inner glazing of an ornamental design in metal filled with stained glass, bearing arms and other heraldic insignia in their proper colours, but so arranged that the ground, which I should recommend to be of a warm yellowish tint covered with a running foliage or diaper, and occasionally relieved by legends in black letter, should predominate, in order that so much light only may be excluded, as may be thought desirable to do away with either a garish or cold effect upon the paintings and decorations generally. That in order to promote the art of sculpture and its effective union with painting and architecture, I would propose that in the halls, galleries, and corridors, statues might be employed for the purpose of dividing the paintings on the walls. By this arrangement a rich effect of perspective, and a due subordination of the several arts to each other, would be obtained. The statues suggested should be, in my opinion, of marble of the colour of polished alabaster, and be raised upon lofty and suitable pedestals placed close to the walls in niches surmounted by enriched canopies; but the niches should be shallow, so that the statues may be as well seen laterally as in front. The architectural decorations of these niches might be painted of such colours as would give the best effect to the adjoining paintings, being relieved in parts by positive colours and gilding, and the backs of them might be painted in dark colours, such as chocolate, crimson, or blue, or they might be of gold for the purpose of giving effect to the statues.

“I would propose that Westminster Hall, which is 239 feet long, 68 feet wide, and 90 feet high, should be made the depository, as in former times, for all trophies obtained in wars with foreign nations. These trophies might be so arranged above the paintings on the walls as to have a very striking and interesting effect. I would further suggest that pedestals, twenty in number, answering to the position of the principal ribs of the roof, should be placed so as to form a central avenue, 30 feet in width, from the north entrance door to St. Stephen’s porch, for statues of the most celebrated British statesmen, whose public services have been commemorated by monuments erected at the public expense, as well as for present and future statesmen whose services may be considered by Parliament to merit a similar tribute to their memories. The statues which have been already proposed to be placed against the walls between the pictures, I would suggest should be those of naval and military commanders. The subjects of the paintings on the walls, twenty-eight in number, 16 feet in length, 10 feet in height, might relate to the most splendid warlike achievements in English history, both by sea and land, which, as well as the statues that are proposed to divide them, might be arranged chronologically. This noble hall, certainly the most splendid of its style in the world, thus decorated by the union of painting and sculpture and architecture, and aided by the arts of decoration as suggested, would present a most striking appearance, and be an object of great national interest.”

Side by side with these proposals, it may be well to place the substance of the principal Reports of the Commission presented to Her Majesty.[80]

After examining the various methods and styles of painting, fresco, oil, encaustic, and stereo-chrome (or water-glass) painting, and the best materials for sculpture, they had proceeded in the first instance to assume the superintendence of purely decorative works, and invite competition even in wood carving, metal-work, and stained glass. Fortunately they were led to reconsider this step, finding no doubt the insuperable practical difficulties which it involved, and to report “that experience proved that it was on many accounts advisable to leave with the architect the responsibility of all strictly decorative works.” They add that “he had undertaken on his own responsibility the whole of the decorative works, except the stained glass,” and that they deemed it right to abstain from all interference, and disclaim all responsibility in the matter.

The tone of the Report appears to convey some surprise and disapprobation of the course adopted by the architect; but any one who considers the wide interpretation which may be given to the word “decoration,” and the absolute impossibility of distinguishing between decorative and constructional work, or of securing unity of effect, when the building is in one hand and the decoration in another, will probably conclude, that, as he was not a member of the Commission, no other course was open to him, consistent with due care, either of his own reputation or of the public service.

The Commission accordingly confined their attention to “works of art,” and decided that (generally speaking) the painting and sculpture should be historical, and that their subjects should be chosen from English history and literature.

They then adopted a scheme, drawn out by a Select Committee, consisting of the Prince Consort, Lords Lansdowne, John Russell, Morpeth, and Mahon, Sir R. H. Inglis, and Messrs. Macaulay, Hallam, and Wyse, for the choice and distribution of the various works of art. Westminster Hall, which in the architect’s scheme formed one of the most magnificent features, was strangely omitted from the scheme of this Committee, and left in its present bare and dreary condition. St. Stephen’s Hall, as occupying the site of the old House of Commons, was set apart for the statues of “men who rose to eminence by the eloquence and ability which they displayed in that house,” and for paintings “illustrating great epochs in constitutional, social, and ecclesiastical history, from the conversion of the Saxons to the accession of the House of Stuart.” The Peers’ and Commons’ corridors, leading from the central hall, were to contain paintings illustrative of the great contest, which began with the meeting of the Long Parliament and ended in 1688. It had been already determined, that the House of Peers should contain statues of the barons who signed Magna Charta, and ideal paintings of Religion, Justice, and Chivalry, faced by corresponding historical pictures, the Baptism of Ethelbert, the Committal of Prince Henry by Chief Justice Gascoigne, and the Investiture of the Black Prince with the Order of the Garter. The Peers’ robing-room was to contain scriptural subjects, illustrative of the “Idea of Justice on Earth, and its development in Law and Judgment.” The Royal antechamber (the “Prince’s chamber”) was to contain “portraits relating to the Tudor family,” copies of the famous tapestry, representing the defeat of the Armada in the old House of Peers, and small bas-reliefs of the Tudor period. The Royal gallery was to be filled with paintings relating to the “military and naval glory of the country;” and the Queen’s robing-room with subjects from the legend of King Arthur. The Painted chamber was to illustrate “the acquisition of the country’s colonies and important places, constituting the British Empire.” The Royal gallery, robing-room, and landing-places of the great staircase were to contain the statues of English sovereigns down to Queen Victoria.