The life and works of Sir Charles Barry

by Alfred Barry

This being the case, the matter slept, until, some years afterwards (in 1853), it became evident that the National Gallery must be either extended or removed. Against the notion of moving it out of the way to South Kensington, entertained by many, and favoured by His Royal Highness the late Prince Consort, Sir Charles most strongly protested, and he ventured (as a Member of the Royal Commission of 1851) to address a detailed letter to His Royal Highness, containing an elaborate counter-scheme. This letter is printed (by permission) in the Appendix, both for the sake of the intrinsic importance of its suggestions, and as a specimen of his official correspondence.

Its substance was as follows: After stating forcibly the objection which he conceived to exist to the proposed concentration at South Kensington, he proceeded first to develope a plan for the formation of the “British Museum of Art and Literature” on the site of the present British Museum in Great Russell Street, by the alterations already referred to, which had previously been submitted to the Government. It may be remarked that it was based on a principle, analogous to that on which he had advocated the removal of the Natural History collections. It seemed to him that the works of art of all ages should fitly be viewed together, that the “National Gallery” was chronologically a sequel to the Gallery of Antiquities. The rudest efforts of imitative art, the works of Assyrian, Egyptian, Grecian, and Roman antiquity, the schools of art of mediæval and modern Europe, all seemed to form one great whole. He would have united them locally, as they are connected theoretically. Accordingly, removing the Natural History collections as before, he proposed to raise the whole suite of rooms assigned to them, to re-roof and re-light them, and so to form a range of galleries, excellently adapted for pictures and sculpture, and capable of containing the national collection for many years to come. This scheme, or some scheme like it, he at all times strongly advocated. It had certainly much to recommend it in abstract principle; he endeavoured, not unsuccessfully, to prove that it could be carried out gradually and systematically, without enormous outlay and without public inconvenience.

He next proceeded to urge the scheme, already referred to, for the transference of the Natural History collections to South Kensington, in connection with zoological and botanical gardens; and he would have united it to a “National Gallery of Science” in its various practical applications, with museums, laboratories, and the like.

In the third place, he went on to deal with the present National Gallery, which was, according to his scheme, after being enlarged and remodelled, to be divided between the Royal Academy of Fine Art and the School of Design for Practical and Decorative Art. Here again he depended on the principle that art must be regarded as a whole, and that “Fine Art” cannot be separated from decorative and practical art, especially in a building, which he regarded as the home of art-teaching, and a place for exhibition of its results, and which he accordingly placed in a position second to none in respect of prominence and centrality.

Fourthly, he proposed to deal with the Museum of Economic Geology, in Jermyn Street, by removing its collection to the Temple of Science in South Kensington, and devoting it to form a “National Polytechnic Institution,” mainly for the use and instruction of the industrial classes.

Lastly, the building of the Society of Arts in the Adelphi was to be given up to meetings and lectures on all subjects connected with trade and commerce.

Such is the outline of a scheme, to the elaboration of which he devoted much time and trouble, and which will probably be thought to show well-digested principle, and careful study of practicability and convenience. It produced no effect at the time, for it opposed a plan in which His Royal Highness was greatly interested, and in the support of which many eminent men were already enlisted. Its author expected little result; but such considerations seldom kept him back from bearing testimony in the cause of his art, and so satisfying the imperious requirements of his architectural conscience.

Royal Academy.—In connection with these important schemes, another fruitless design was made by Sir Charles Barry.

In 1859 the Government of Lord Derby proposed to dispossess the Royal Academy of their present accommodation in Trafalgar Square, with a view to that enlargement and alteration of the National Gallery, which was felt to be inevitable. Burlington House was fixed upon, as a site which might accommodate the Royal Academy, and certain other Institutions which had claims upon the Crown. Messrs. Banks and Barry (of which firm Sir Charles’s eldest son was a member), having lately gained high distinction in the Public Offices’ competition, were appointed by the Government to prepare general plans, showing how the entire area of Burlington House and its gardens might be best made available. It was ascertained that the Royal Academy would accept a portion of the site, would conform to the general block plan, and would erect a building at their own cost.

The whole area was to contain two great courts, with a grand thoroughfare through them from Piccadilly to Burlington Gardens. The Government placed ground at the disposal of the Academy occupying two-thirds of the Piccadilly front, and the whole of the western side of the first of the great courts. Sir Charles Barry was appointed by the Academy to carry out the work.