Chapter XIII: Section I: On the night of October 16th, 1834, Mr. Barry was returning

from Brighton on the coach, when a red glare on the London side of the horizon showed that a great fire had begun. Eager questions elicited the news, that the Houses of Parliament had caught fire, and that all attempts to stop the conflagration were unavailing. No sooner had the coach reached the office, than he hurried to the spot, and remained there all night. All London was out, absorbed in the grandeur and terror of the sight.

The destruction was so far complete, that preservation or restoration was out of the question; the erection of a new building was inevitable, on a scale, and with an opportunity for the exercise of architectural genius, hitherto unexampled in England. The thought of this great opportunity, and the conception of designs for the future, mingled in Mr. Barry’s mind, as in the minds of many other spectators, with those more obviously suggested by the spectacle itself.

The opportunity occurred at a critical time in the progress of architecture, when the long empire of classicism was being broken, and the claims of Gothic began to be recognised. There were all the energy and enterprise abroad, which belong to a period of change. The whole artistic world was on the alert, and the public generally were eagerly desirous that the opportunity should be used to the utmost.

Nor were these desires disappointed. At first, indeed, there was some inclination to keep to routine, and Sir R. Smirke was desired to prepare designs for a new building. But this course was felt to be unsatisfactory. The Government were called upon (by a published letter from Sir E. Cust to Sir R. Peel) to open a competition and appoint a Royal Commission to award the prizes. They readily responded to the call; and in accordance with the recommendations of a Committee of the House of Lords presented in June, 1835, the terms of competition were published. The style was to be “Gothic or Elizabethan;” the drawings were to be sent in (without formal estimates) and the decision pronounced before January 20th, 1836; and four premiums of 500_l._ each were promised, it being understood that the architect receiving the first premium should carry out the work, unless some grave cause to the contrary should be discovered, in which case he was to receive an extra premium of 1000_l._

The period of competition was short; only by unremitting exertion could drawings of such a building be prepared within six months; and certainly by the successful competitor such exertion was unsparingly bestowed. Four or five hours’ sleep was the utmost which he allowed himself during this time, and he paid the penalty of his over-exertion in a short and sharp attack of illness, when the work was done. The drawings were sent in on December 1st, 1835. There were ninety-seven competitors, and Mr. Barry’s plan was No. 64. When once the strain was over, his mind most characteristically threw off its anxiety, until rumours began to ooze out that No. 64 was among the first, and not unlikely to be the chosen design. Then followed a short time of vehement excitement, till on February 29th, 1836, the award was published, and the first premium assigned to Mr. Barry.

The Report of the Commissioners was published. It stated that the imperfect state of knowledge as to sound and ventilation had prevented their giving much weight to these points in their decision; and that therefore they had confined themselves “to the consideration of the beauty and grandeur of the general design, to its practicability, to the skill shown in the various arrangements of the building, and the accommodation afforded; to the attention paid to the instructions delivered, as well as to the equal distribution of light and air through every part of the structure.” On these grounds they assigned the palm to Mr. Barry, and continued as follows:--

... We beg leave respectfully to add, that it is impossible to
examine the minute drawings for this design, and not feel
confidence in the author’s skill in Gothic Architecture; still, as
the beauty of this depends upon the attention to detail, for which
the architect has no rule to guide him, but must trust to his
practical knowledge and good taste, we humbly, yet strongly,
recommend to your Majesty, that his Drawings shall be submitted
from time to time to competent judges of their effect, lest from
over-confidence, negligence, or inattention in the execution of the
work, we fail to obtain that result to which our just expectations
have been raised.

We are, however, far from thinking it advisable, should the plan,
when revised and perfected, be finally approved of by your Majesty,
that it shall be subject to any alteration, that may have the
effect of changing its character, or of impairing its unity of
design.

We are aware that we are not called upon in selecting and
classifying the plans for your Majesty’s approbation to make the
cost of any design an object of our consideration; and we fully
agree in the prudence of having abstained from requiring the
competitors to furnish estimates, which would have been productive
of no public advantage, whilst the trouble and expense attending
them would have been a considerable bar to competition.... We are
conscious that in the plan we have selected for your Majesty’s
approbation, the enriched appearance of the several elevations will
naturally excite suspicion, that it cannot be carried into effect
but at an enormous expense. In the absence of the detail of any
portion of the work, we can form no perfect idea of the architect’s
intentions, but even with the minute drawings before us, we have
sufficient evidence to lead us to the belief that, from the
unbroken character and general uniformity of the different fronts,
and external decorations being wholly unnecessary in any of the
courts, no design worthy of the country, of equal magnitude, can
offer greater facilities for economy in the execution.[62]

The proposal here made to appoint a controlling commission (which many conceived to imply a recommendation that the original commission should be continued for this purpose) was unusual, and Mr. Barry was censured by his professional brethren for not protesting against it. Probably he felt that it was impracticable; certainly it was not carried out, and he was one of the last men in the world to submit to minute or vexatious control. Meanwhile he left matters to take their course.

The Report of the Commissioners was approved by a Select Committee of the Houses. An estimate was made by the architect, aided by Messrs. Chawner and Hunt, and afterwards, by the direction of the Board of Works, tested by Messrs. Seward and Chawner. The calculated expense was about 800,000_l._, exclusive of furniture and fittings.[63] The period fixed for its completion (with little foresight of the difficulties that must intervene) was about six years, and on this notion was based the calculation of the architect’s remuneration, out of which arose the harassing and painful controversy, to be more particularly narrated hereafter.

All at present seemed favourable; and the general opinion of the public ratified the choice of the Commissioners. The triumph was one of which any man might feel proud; and the work, commenced by the architect at the age of forty, in the prime of life and vigour, might have been expected to be carried out as auspiciously as it had been begun.[64]

But even now the triumph was not without alloy. Professional jealousy did not sleep. Perhaps it was inevitable that some soreness should be felt by the unsuccessful competitors for so important a work. It was certainly natural that sharp criticisms should be pronounced on the selected design. But happily few architects have had to encounter such a clamour as was then raised,--a clamour which certainly passed beyond the legitimate province of artistic criticism, venturing to attack the competency and honesty of the judges, and the private character of the successful architect.

In the first instance the partisans of classical architecture raised their voices in a somewhat tardy protest against the adoption of the Gothic style. They felt it to be a death-blow to the supremacy which Greek and Roman architecture had hitherto enjoyed. An article in the ‘London and Westminster Review,’ by “B.,” stigmatized Gothic as “a mere ‘ecclesiastical style,’” and advocated a change of site, as a less evil than the local necessity for the adoption of obnoxious Gothicism. W. R. Hamilton’s “Letters to the Earl of Elgin” embodied, in an abler and more elaborate dissertation, the same protest against that which the writer conceived to be an antique and venerable barbarism. The rising Gothic school, of course, would not suffer such artistic blasphemy to pass unnoticed. Col. Jackson, in answer to Mr. Hamilton, took a defensive line, denying a monopoly of beauty to Classical architecture, and putting forward for Gothic the plea of nationality, of picturesque or romantic beauty, and of local associations. But this tone did not content Mr. Pugin; he followed with an article in favour of Gothic, breathing a little of the more aggressive spirit of the present Gothic school. He himself had not appeared among the competitors, although one set of designs was believed to have emanated in great degree from him.[65] It will be obvious to any one who knows his designs or writings, that he must greatly have disapproved of many main principles in Mr. Barry’s designs. But the question at issue was the dignity and value of Gothic architecture generally, and he plunged into it with all the enthusiasm of his character.

All this controversy was natural and justifiable; the only objection to the plea of the Classicists was that it came too late, and the whole is interesting, chiefly as marking the important influence which this competition was felt to exercise on the progress of Gothic architecture in this country.

But the storm of personal opposition and abuse which followed cannot be so easily excused. At first anonymous attacks appeared in newspapers on the “highly ornamented and meretricious” character of the design, on the dangerously artistic beauty of the drawings, as tending to mislead the judges, and on the incompetency of the judges themselves, who were designated as mere amateurs. Hints were even ventured upon as to the favourable disposition of the chief commissioner towards Mr. Barry. It was pronounced that the competition was a “complete failure,” and that it ought to be renewed on a different basis, and with a greater freedom of choice as to style. When the design was altered and enlarged, to suit an extension of the site, the alteration was called a plagiarism, and alleged to vitiate the selection of the judges. All this was bad enough, but it is only that to which all public men are exposed, an acknowledged drawback to the great benefit of a free press, which will exist as long as anonymous writing is recognised. If this had been all, it might have been patiently borne.

But it was not all. Far more decided and unusual measures followed. An exhibition of the unsuccessful designs was opened on March 21st, 1836, with a view to invite comparisons. Finally a meeting of the unsuccessful competitors was held, to take steps to set the award aside. The chairman (one of the most distinguished of the unsuccessful competitors) stated the case, as one in which public duty must conquer private friendship, and defy the danger of misconstruction as to the motives of action; and after some discussion it was resolved, that the award of the judges was not confirmed by the public, that the prizemen did not merit the preference which that award gave them, that, in fact, a board of amateur judges was necessarily incompetent, and that a petition should be made to be heard at the bar of the House of Commons, to show cause for a competent commission to revise the whole proceedings.

The resolutions did not pass without energetic protest, especially from Mr. (now Prof.) Donaldson. It was urged by him (as by Sir E. Cust, in a pamphlet subsequently published) with a force and truth fatal to the objectors, that all these proceedings came too late, and that those, who by competing had acknowledged the judges, could not now with any propriety vilify them, and set their decision aside.

The petition however was prepared, and presented by Mr. Hume, on June 22nd, 1836; it was grounded mainly on the fact that four Commissioners only signed the award, and the assertion that in that award considerations of expense and the conditions of competition were disregarded; its prayer was for a fresh investigation of the whole matter. This was followed up in a formal attack by Mr. Hume, on July 22nd, based on the alleged ground of the alterations made in the plan, but showing a characteristic alarm at the prospect of large expenditure. The Commissioners’ award was ably defended by Mr. Tracy (afterwards Lord Sudeley), one of their number. But the question was settled at once by a speech of Sir R. Peel, in which he pointed out, with obvious truth, that if Mr. Hume’s suggestions were adopted the “whole principle of competition would be destroyed,” and the public faith endangered; and expressed a pity (somewhat prophetic) for the successful competitor as a man already “hunted and pursued,” “_cui sua mortifera est victoria_.” It was impossible to resist such an argument, even had the criticisms on the successful design been impartial, and the unpopularity of it real. But, in fact, the opposition was almost entirely professional, and in the profession itself it did not pass unquestioned. For the debate was followed by the publication of a protest of twelve competitors, against the proceedings of the original meeting of dissentients and the presentation of the petition, on the ground that the steps taken to overturn the petition were “indecorous and unprofessional,” and that the whole proceedings tended to disunion in the architectural profession. This protest was signed by Messrs. Donaldson, Angell, Kendall, Mocatta, Davies, Morgan, Wallace, Hakewill, Robinson, Blore, Lamb, and Bardwell. After this the opposition gradually died away, except in anonymous attacks.

During the whole of this time Mr. Barry, by the advice of his friends, had remained silent. He felt deeply the painful position in which he was placed, and, most of all, certain insinuations, touching not only his own character, but that of Sir E. Cust. It was asserted that he was “Sir E. Cust’s tool,” that the design in fact was that gentleman’s, and he only his draughtsman.[66] It was a relief to know that the Select Committee of the House of Commons, appointed to consider the question in March, 1836, gave opportunity for the following evidence from Sir E. Cust[67]--

_Lord Francis Egerton._ You make mention of Mr. Barry’s plan; do
you mean to imply you knew it to be Mr. Barry’s plan at the time
you considered it?

_Sir E. Cust._ In answer to that question, I must say that I never
had the pleasure of seeing but one design of Mr. Barry’s in my
life; I knew nothing of his style, and was not even personally
acquainted with him; but I had heard so much of the merits of his
plan, that when No. 64 passed in review, which was not till I had
seen the greater number of those which were submitted to us, I
certainly had a strong suspicion, from the beauty of it, that it
could be no other than Mr. Barry’s; but I had nothing in the world
to lead me to this belief, excepting the superiority of the design.
Neither had I a knowledge, from looking at the plans, of the
authors of any of them; I made a guess, it is true, at one or two;
but in each conjecture I was mistaken.... I should like to add, as
I am the only one of the four Commissioners who had a personal
knowledge of Mr. Barry before we entered upon our duties, that,
immediately upon my receiving the intimation that my name was to be
proposed as one of the Commissioners, I signified to Mr. Barry my
desire that we might have no communication with each other, pending
the inquiry, and that, whenever we might meet, the subject of the
Plans of the Houses of Parliament should never be brought into
conversation between us, which he so strictly fulfilled, that,
until I saw his plan in the due course of examination, I never had
the slightest glimpse of a sketch, nor the slightest hint of any
kind from him or from any common friend, which would lead me to
infer that No. 64 was the design of Mr. Barry.

After evidence such as this, the calumny could be repeated no longer.

Of the silence which he observed, trying as it was, he never had cause to repent. Many of those who opposed him resumed their relations of intimacy or friendship, when the bitterness of disappointment had passed away, and could hardly have failed to regret the course which they had pursued.[68] On the other hand, the noble and generous support of the friends (most of all of Mr. Donaldson) who stood up to vindicate his character against so strong a professional array, was intensely felt at the time, and never forgotten in after-life.[69] It was the only point in the whole proceedings which he cared to remember. But the trial was a painful one, and, when the attack died away, it left a vague discontent, which bore afterwards many fruits of trouble. It deserves a record as a specimen of the drawbacks which attend on professional success. Fortunately it is an experience which in all the important competitions since opened has never had a parallel.