It was an insult to a man like Wren, who had again and again—as in the case of Greenwich—given his skill for nothing, and it was doubly unjust because, what delays there were, sprang from the conceit and ignorance of the S. Paul’s Commission. Wren protested, but took no active step until he had seen the Dome of his beloved Cathedral completed.
Then he sent in a petition to Queen Anne as follows:—
‘The most humble petition of Sir Christopher Wren
‘Sheweth,
‘That there being a Clause in an Act of Parliament which suspends a moiety of your Petitioner’s salary at S. Paul’s, till the building be finished, and being obstructed in his measures for completing the same, by the arbitrary proceedings of some of the Commissioners for that fabric,—
‘Your Petitioner most humbly beseeches your Majesty graciously to interpose your Royal Authority so as that he may be suffered to finish the said building in such manner and after such designs as shall be approved by your Majesty or such persons as your Majesty shall think fit to appoint for that purpose; and your Petitioner, etc.,
‘Christopher Wren.’
‘FRAUDS AND ABUSES.’
This petition was sent to the Commissioners, whose reply was, that when Sir Christopher had acted without their approbation his performances had proved very faulty;(!) they then digressed into remarks on their own devotion to the Queen’s service, and into a series of petty charges against some of the workmen employed in the Cathedral, especially the bell-founder, Richard Phelp, and Richard Jennings the master-carpenter, whom they charged with a variety of frauds and abuses, and begged should be at once dismissed; they also venture to assert that ‘Sir Christopher, or some employed by him, may be supposed to have found their advantage in this delay.’ There is little attempt at proof in this reply of the Commissioners, but much supposition and conjecture. A pamphlet, ‘Frauds and Abuses at S. Paul’s,’ published anonymously at this time, sets out all their suspicions in detail. Sir Christopher replied in a pamphlet entitled ‘An Answer to Frauds and Abuses in S. Paul’s,’ and laid a petition before the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London, in which he sets out his grievances, how little power had been really given to him and how far he had ‘been limited and restrained.’
‘However,’ he says, ‘it has pleased God so far to bless my sincere endeavours, as that I have brought the building to a conclusion so far as is in my power, and I think nothing can be said now to remain unperfected, but the iron fence round the Church, and painting the Cupola, the directing whereof is taken out of my hands, and therefore I hope I am not answerable for them, nor that the said suspending clause can, or ought, to affect me any further on that account. As for painting the Cupola, your Lordships know that it has been long under consideration; that I have no power left me concerning it; and that it is not yet resolved in what manner to do it, or whether at all. And as for the iron fence, it is so remarkable and so fresh in memory, by whose influence and importunity it was wrested from me, and the doing of it carried in a way which I venture to say will ever be condemned. I have just this to observe further, that your Lordships had no hand in it; and consequently ought not share in the blame that may attend it.’