The site chosen was low; approached moreover from the higher ground of Trafalgar Square, and (in close juxta-position with the principal front) from Westminster Bridge, the parapet of which was then so high as actually to conceal a large portion of the front on the first view from the Surrey side of the river, and to give it the effect of being completely sunk. In some degree this defect might be, and has been, remedied, by the erection of a bridge (as at present) at a much lower level of roadway, and with low parapets; and this was a plan which Mr. Barry always strongly urged. But the only effectual remedy would have been to raise the building on a great terrace (as is done at Somerset House), so as to bring it on a level with the parapet of the bridge. It would have been a costly scheme; but high cost would hardly have deterred him from recommending it. The fatal objection was, that it would have left Westminster Hall and the Abbey, so to speak, in a hole; and this could not have been tolerated. The lowness therefore of the site might be mitigated, but could not be remedied.
Moreover, the site was irregular, almost wedge-shaped in form; and on the land-side Westminster Hall and the Law Courts (the former not parallel to the river front), made a continuous elevation impossible. These points presented great difficulty in plan, especially to one, who held to regularity and symmetry as main principles of design. The Law Courts might be and (he thought) ought to be removed; the other difficulties still remained inevitable.
Between the prescribed styles of Elizabethan and Gothic there was no long hesitation. The former appeared a bastard style, unfit for a building of such magnitude. Gothic was at once chosen. Of all its styles Mr. Barry admired most the Early English; but he then thought it hardly fit for other than ecclesiastical purposes. Finally he chose Perpendicular, thinking that it would lend itself most easily to the requirements of the building, and to the principle of regularity, which he intended to introduce in his design. But, if he could have had a site to his mind, and had been left free to choose his style, there is little doubt that he would have preferred Italian. The example most frequent in his thoughts was Inigo Jones’ grand design for the Palace at Whitehall; his own general ideas were manifested in the great design for the New Public Offices, which was the last important work of his life. He actually prepared some sketches and studies for an Italian design, in defiance of the instructions to the competitors.
But he felt that, under all circumstances, Gothic was the style best fitted for the New Palace, and, if Westminster Hall was to be made a feature in the design, the only style possible; and he was consoled for the loss of Italian mainly by the thought of the facility given by Gothic for the erection of towers, the one method by which he thought it possible to
redeem from insignificance a great building, in which convenience forbade great general height, and for which a low and unfavourable site had been provided.
Under the limitations thus imposed from without, his mind began to work on the conception of a design. The original idea of his plan was sketched out on the back of a letter, while he was on a visit to Mr. Godfrey, one of his early friends. Even this contained the germ of all that was to follow. But the first plan, which he drew out with care, exhibited every one of the great features of the executed building; and even at this early stage his views extended beyond this plan with a view to the completion of the design. He proposed to enclose New Palace Yard, erecting at the angle a lofty gate-tower, visible from Bridge Street to the Abbey. Beyond this point was to be a grand quadrangle, in which the Victoria Tower should be the principal feature, and from that Tower a grand approach was to lead straight to Buckingham Palace.
In considering the plan, Mr. Barry at once saw that Westminster Hall must either ruin any design, or form a principal feature in it. St. Stephen’s Chapel was in ruins; it was difficult to restore it with certainty; and if it were restored, it was natural that it should be reclaimed to ecclesiastical purposes.[90]
This he therefore thought it better to avoid; but the crypt remained, to be preserved and rescued from its former use, as the Speaker’s Dining-room, to a more worthy purpose.[91] He therefore resolved at once to make Westminster Hall his great public approach, and to carry the public through it, and through a hall occupying the site of St. Stephen’s Chapel, right into the centre of the site provided. There were difficulties in the way; the position of the hall and chapel at right angles turned the line of approach; there was a want of parallelism in the one, and of perpendicularity in the other, to the line of the river front, and so to the principal axis of the building; the vast dimensions of the hall itself would tend to dwarf any other hall to which it formed the entrance. But he felt that these were secondary considerations, not worthy of counterbalancing the grandeur and the appropriateness of the general conception. The verdict of public criticism, both at the time of the competition and subsequently, has fully justified his determination.