the river front. The great increase of extent required some device for breaking the monotony and comparative lowness of this long front. He was strongly averse at all times to setting back the wings, or greatly advancing the centre of an architectural front, so as to break its line, when seen in perspective, and interfere with its apparent size. He was reduced therefore to attempt variation in outline, by slightly raising the whole centre, by heightening into towers the masses which flanked it, and by introducing visible roofs and turrets. This last change was one of principle; the “castellated” form necessarily disappeared at once, the parapet became subordinate, the turrets, originally battlemented, now terminated in tops, which, after many trials, and with some reluctance, were made of the ogee form. An upward tendency was given to the whole. The towers of the front remained for some time without visible roofs, and when the roofs were introduced they were so kept down (in deference to the advice of others) in relation to the angle turrets, that some confusion of principle resulted. He regretted afterwards that he had not kept down the pinnacles, and made the roofs boldly predominant. At the same time a change was made as to the buttresses of the whole front. They had no thrust to sustain, they interrupted the cornice and string-courses, and interfered with the panelling. For these reasons Mr. Barry himself disliked them, and, external criticism coinciding with his own feeling, he resolved to change them into turrets, which were free from all these objections, and which would tend at once to elevate and break the sky-line, and by their greater projection to relieve the flatness of the front. These turrets, once introduced, must of course prevail throughout; they made their appearance accordingly in the prominent masses of the wings, and so the change of the whole character of the front was complete.

This alteration may be considered to have been more or less occasioned by the extension of front; other changes were made without any such ground. In the original design the windows of the two principal stories were set in arched recesses, with no string-courses to mark the divisions of the stories, united, as it were, under one head. This was now altered; the internal arrangements were manifested by the complete separation of the two stories; the recesses and the pointed heads of the windows of both stories were abolished, and in the attic story of the centre the continuous arcading was changed into sets of triple openings, so as to harmonize with the three-light windows below. These changes were less generally approved, as tending to give a flatness to the front, which the changes noticed in the preceding paragraph were not sufficient to remove.

The lower story of the whole front was made very solid and plain. It was indeed originally intended to contain a fire-proof range of vaults for the public records. Plainness of design indicated its use; it harmonized also with the principle which he always advocated, that the basement line should be as unadorned as possible, and that richness should increase with elevation; and it seemed to him more than usually necessary in the case of the river front, in order to increase the effect of the embankment, and give the appearance of elevation of site.

Such were the principles which governed the design of the great front, and this design to a considerable extent determined that of the others. The front in New Palace Yard differed chiefly in the adoption of square buttresses, and (as the rooms looking into it were smaller) in the division of the whole building above the basement into three stories instead of two. This division not only suited convenience, but appeared to him more accordant with true principle; and he rather regretted that it could not have been adopted in the river front.[99] The front to Old Palace Yard, with the Victoria tower at one end and Westminster Hall at the other, might have given opportunity for greater variety of design; but the same general character still was made to prevail, only varied by the advancement of alternate bays and by the porch of the Lords’ entrance, which was required for convenience, and which is little else than a portion of the basement advanced.

The great Victoria tower underwent repeated alterations. It had been originally treated with all the solidity of a “keep;” but the reduction on plan was compensated by increase in height, and the whole character of the design was necessarily changed. The entrance had been of moderate dimensions (professedly designed on the model of the Erpingham Gate at Norwich), and the top of the niche-band ranged with the cornice of the building. It was now raised to its present magnificent dimensions; the niches remained; and the upper part of the tower was divided into three large and two smaller stories. The design and arrangement of these cost incalculable trouble before it assumed its present form, divided into three windows, and the upper story rendered the prominent one by the arched and canopied heads of the windows.

As the tower approached completion, he felt some longing for a high pyramidal termination. But circumstances prevented his realizing this idea, and reduced him to the high roof and the great flagstaff. In the tower, however, as it stands, he always felt pride and pleasure, and trusted that it would be the great feature of the building, by which his name would be best known hereafter.[100]

The tower was at first intended to contain such of the public records as were not frequently in use, and was arranged accordingly with two lofty internal stories. Subsequently orders were given to accommodate all the records; not without great inconvenience, but with much ingenuity, accommodation was provided by the insertion of numerous floors and other contrivances. After all, the intention was abandoned by the authorities, and all the trouble and expense were thrown away.

The clock-tower was the one feature of the building which gave the greatest trouble, and for which design after design was made and rejected. It was to be what its name implied: the clock was to be the one prominent feature, not a mere accessory—treated as an architectural ornament. For practical purposes it was to be raised on the highest story, and made of immense size; the ornamental character of the whole front required that the lower part of the tower should be faced with delicate panelling, and yet a “top-heavy” effect must be carefully avoided. It was at once decided that the lower part should be solid, with but slight openings. To make the clock-story duly prominent all sorts of devices were thought of, till at last an example was remembered in which the whole clock-story was made to project beyond the body of the tower. The suggestion was eagerly caught at; the example quoted differed in almost every respect from the character of the tower to be designed, and endless modifications were needed; but the general principle was preserved, and the result is one of the most striking features of the building. Still the termination remained; designs and models were tried over and over again; some forms appeared deficient in lightness, others were rejected as too ecclesiastical; till at last the form was devised which we now see. On the whole he felt satisfied with the tower, only thinking that the outline would have been improved by raising both the bell-chamber and the terminal portion of the roof, and regretting the angular projections on the face of the turrets below, which are terminated abruptly by the clock-story afterwards devised. His work on this and the Victoria tower gives a striking specimen of the process by which the whole design was worked out; no labour, no delay, no expense, seemed excessive in the pursuit of what he thought perfection, even in the minutest detail. They were temporary; the censures they might provoke were also temporary; the result was lasting, and worth any temporary sacrifice.[101]

Such were the reasons which led to modifications of the original design in the chief portions of the building. Besides these, however, two general tendencies must be noticed.

The first was the desire to increase as much as possible the upward tendency of the lines of the design, to elevate and vary the skyline throughout. Every ventilating shaft was taken advantage of; every turret was heightened, till the central lantern, itself an insertion, was surrounded by a forest of louvres and spires. The whole character of the design was changed; and the change arose, partly from original predilection for the spire form, partly from advancing knowledge of Gothic architecture, but principally from practical experience of the great architectural disadvantages entailed by the site, and the comparative lowness of the building itself. The change has been generally recognised as an improvement.

The other tendency was to profuse ornamentation. His notion was that a general spread of minute ornament, a kind of “diapering” of the whole, was rich, but more simple, because less likely to interfere with the main outline, than ornaments on a large scale more sparingly employed. In the particular case before him he thought that smallness of scale in details would help to give an appearance of size to the building. But his feeling always was that ornamentation, if right in kind, could not be overdone; he did not recognise the value of plainer portions to act as a “setting” of the decoration; to him they appeared as “neglected spots;” and partiality of ornament he considered as tawdriness. In the internal courts he carried plainness out, even to excess; but he would not unite the two principles.

The effect was visible over the fronts of the whole building, the more so, because his great idea was, by the aid of the sister arts, to make the New Palace a monumental history of England. Sculpture without, sculpture, painting, and stained glass within, were to preserve the memorials of the past, and declare the date and object of the building.[102]

Nothing provoked more criticism than this high ornamentation of the design; but, in spite of all such adverse criticism, he still held to the principle as the true one, and believed that it would eventually be recognised as such. It was once remarked by M. Guizot that the work was a “mélange de finesse et de grandeur.” Such was certainly the leading idea which inspired its design.

II. The preceding section has described the principles which governed the original conception and subsequent modifications of this great design. It remains only to give a brief description of the building as it exists, so far as is necessary to serve as a guide to the annexed plan.[103]

The whole building occupies an irregular site of about eight acres. Its longest front (the river front) is 940 feet in length, each wing having a frontage of 120 feet, and the terrace occupying the remaining 700 feet. Its greatest width (exclusive of Westminster Hall) is about 340 feet. It contains above 500 rooms, and includes residences for eighteen different officers of the two Houses, of whom the principal are the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Serjeant-at-arms, the Usher of the Black Rod, and the Librarians of the Houses of Lords and Commons. It thus provides for a resident population of about 200.

This large mass of building receives light and air, not only from its external fronts, but from eleven internal quadrangles, many of considerable area. In actual size, and in the extent and variety of its requirements, it is equalled by few buildings of modern times.

The only portions of the old building, which it was found possible to retain, are Westminster Hall, the Cloister Court, and the crypt of St. Stephen’s Chapel, under the present St. Stephen’s Hall.

The main lines of the plan will be easily discerned, suggested as they are by the nature of the site, the position of Westminster Hall, and the duality of the object of the building. The first and most important is the line of public approach through Westminster Hall. At the end of the hall there is an ascent by a grand flight of steps to a landing under the great window (to which there is a shorter public communication through St. Margaret’s porch, from Old Palace Yard), and thence by another flight into St. Stephen’s Hall. This hall is ninety-five feet in length, twenty-nine in width, and forty-three in height to the pitch of the groined roof. It contains several statues of celebrated statesmen, most of which are very beautiful as works of art, though executed on so large a scale as to be detrimental to the effect of the hall. It is intended to cover with appropriate frescoes the panels and the large arched recesses at the end of the hall.

An archway at the east end gives entrance to the central hall, octagon on plan and vaulted. Its vault is the largest octagon vault known, in which a central pillar is not used, and the lantern is sustained by a cone of brickwork rising above the vault.

From this point the public approaches diverge. To the right and left corridors open into the lobbies of the Houses of Lords and Commons. At the east end another corridor opens into the “witness hall,” from which access is had on the principal floor to the Peers’ libraries and committee-rooms and the Commons’ libraries, which, with a central “conference room,” occupy the whole curtain of the river front; a staircase leads to the upper floor, containing another long range of committee-rooms.[104]

The next great line is that of the royal approach. The royal carriage drives under the great Victoria tower, and the sovereign ascending the royal staircase enters the robing room, and thence emerges into the “royal gallery,” a room one hundred and ten feet long, forty-five in width, and forty-five in height, with panelled ceiling. This gallery is open to the public at the opening and prorogation of Parliament, and was intended to be the entrance to the House of Peers. For the convenience of the peers an anteroom, the “Prince’s Chamber,” was added, through which the sovereign passes to the throne end of the House. Somewhat small in itself, and accordingly ornamented with small and delicate detail, it has been much injured by the large statue of Her Majesty, with the figures of Justice and Mercy flanking her throne, designed by John Gibson, Esq., R.A., and placed in this chamber.

The two Houses are approached, either from the central hall, or by private entrances for the members. The private entrance to the House of Peers is in the centre of the Old Palace Yard front, and there is another from the south-western angle of St. Stephen’s Hall. The entrances to the House of Commons are by the Star Chamber and Cloister Courts, and by an archway on the western side of Westminster Hall. Each House has its lobbies, corridors, and refreshment rooms, with ready access to its committee-rooms and libraries.

The two Houses themselves are of very different character. The House of Peers, as being, not only one chamber of the legislature, but the presence chamber of the sovereign, is of considerable size (ninety feet in length, forty-five in width, and forty-five in height), and decorated with lavish magnificence. The House of Commons, not presenting the same characteristics, is smaller in size (seventy-five feet in length, forty-five feet in width, and forty-one feet to the central line of the ceiling), while it provides much larger accommodation in the galleries and lobbies, and its decoration, though careful and elaborate, is less magnificent in character. The official residences are, of course, grouped round the Houses to which they are appendages. The offices of the Lord Great Chamberlain are on the south front, the residences of the Usher of the Black Rod, and Librarian of the House of Peers, at the south end of the river front, and that of the Serjeant-at-arms on the Old Palace Yard front. At the north end of the river front we have the Speaker’s house, and the houses of the Serjeant-at-arms, the Librarian and the Chief Clerk on the north front and the front to New Palace Yard.

The plan generally, though having great intricacy in detail, an intricacy increased by constant variation of requirements, and by the elaborate ventilating system originally imposed on the architect, is yet perfectly simple and practical in its main lines. He adopted it from the first as the only one which could be effective or satisfactory, and never wavered in his approval of its great features; for it showed that characteristic which has been noticed in all his works, the preservation of the leading principle of “stateliness,” subordinating, often with great skill, variety of requirement and of contrivance to a general unity and repose in effect. And, although there are inevitable defects in detail, such as difficulty in obtaining sufficient light in some parts of the building, miscalculation of the amount of accommodation required, &c., yet experience appears to have confirmed his opinion and justified his confidence in the leading principles of his plan.

The first grand external feature is undoubtedly the great line of the river front, which has been noticed above, and is illustrated, so far as the scale will allow, by the view given. The other great front, the west or land front, has never as yet been presented to the eye as a whole. It is interrupted by the law-courts, the days of which appear now to be numbered. When they are removed, it is to be hoped that due care will be taken to substitute some front harmonizing with the building, on which the present erection forms an excrescence. In any case this front will present a more broken line, which will probably, considering the height of the building, conduce to beauty and picturesqueness of effect. One extension of it, shown on the plan, has never yet been made; for New Palace Yard, which Sir Charles hoped to form into a great architectural quadrangle, is now to be enclosed merely by an ornamental railing.

The other important features are the three great towers. Of these it is to be remembered that the central tower was an after-thought, necessitated by arrangements over which the architect had no control; otherwise it is possible that, as has been suggested, it would have been so enlarged as to form a principal feature of the design. It has been a subject of some surprise, that the general principle of symmetry followed in the plan and river front, has not been preserved in the case of the two original towers; but from the very beginning of the design this was otherwise arranged. The architect probably regarded each as an almost independent feature, likely to group not with the symmetry of the river front, but with the necessarily broken line of the land front. In their design they present a marked contrast, massiveness and grandeur being the characteristic of the Victoria tower, lightness and elegance of the clock-tower. Each has its admirers. It is perhaps generally thought that the clock-tower, from the smallness of its detail, harmonizes better with the adjacent front, while the Victoria tower, magnificent in itself, would have tended less to dwarf the rest of the building, had it stood almost independent of it, connected only by some grand cloister.

Such is a brief notice of the actual features of the building. The task of criticism must be left to others. At first very greatly praised, it was for a time somewhat recklessly condemned. Already it is clear that it is taking the position due to it. Critics of very opposite schools show their appreciation, both of the difficulties of the task assigned to its architect, and the degree of success with which that object has been attained. Mr. Fergusson, in a vehement anti-Gothic chapter, regretting that the style of the building was to be Gothic at all, concludes that, “taking it all in all, it is perhaps the most successful attempt to apply mediæval architecture to modern civic purposes which has yet been carried out.” Mr. Scott, in his work on Gothic architecture, does not hesitate to speak of it as, “on the whole, the most successful of our modern public buildings.” An article in the ‘Saturday Review,’ immediately after Sir C. Barry’s death, written in kindliness of feeling, but written also with care and discrimination in criticism, expresses pretty accurately the verdict of the educated public taste. “In spite of the shortcomings, which just critical taste or captious antagonism can find in the details and the mass of the work,—in spite of the disadvantage of the primary idea of the style in which it is built having been revolutionised in the course of its progress—yet the Palace of Westminster stands alone and matchless in Europe among the architectural monuments of this busy age. From the border of the Thames, from St. James’s Park or Waterloo Place, from Piccadilly or the bridge across the Serpentine, the spectacle of that great square tower, of the central needle, and far away of the more fantastic beffroi—all grouping at every step in some new combination—stamps the whole building as the massive conception of a master-mind.”[105]

CHAPTER VIII.

CHIEF DESIGNS NOT EXECUTED.

The list of Sir Charles Barry’s designs in the Appendix will show, that the numerous works which he executed formed only a part of the many designs conceived by him. It could not well be otherwise. In his early days he, of course, entered into many competitions, and made many fruitless designs. Even later in life his mind was always at work in the conception of designs, often without regard to immediate practicability. It was almost impossible for him (as has been said) to enter a building, or survey a town, without devising plans for its improvement. As few buildings were perfect, and hardly any to be despaired of, his naturally sanguine temperament, and consciousness of resource, often led him to forget or disregard all difficulties which stood in the way of his improvements.[106]

In London especially his eye was always on the watch. Comparing it with continental capitals, and especially with Paris, he, of course, felt painfully the contrast of what might be with what is, and sighed over the waste of resources, and the neglect of grand opportunities for architectural display. His architectural career indeed began at a time of strict economy and rigid utilitarianism. But as it advanced, he could not but see that men were gradually emancipating themselves from the conventional fallacy, which separated the useful by a strong line of demarcation from the ornamental. Art was shown to involve, not mere arbitrary taste, but substantial and reasonable principle, and accordingly its influence was recognised, as important and valuable, not only in the case of the individual, but in that of the community. Accordingly artistic efforts have been allowed greater scope, and higher reward.[107] Schemes are proposed, and sums of money voted for them, which would have made the hair of the economists of 1835 stand on end with horror. Nor is the feeling for artistic display confined to the higher classes. It does not appear that the tendency to greater democratic influence is likely to check the growth of this feeling. Sir Charles rejoiced of course in its development, and his notions of metropolitan improvement grew in boldness and comprehensiveness of scale. His natural activity in this direction was quickened by the fact of his long official connection with the Board of Works. Many of the Chief Commissioners had much confidence in his opinion and designs. He was not unfrequently consulted as to public improvements; and it was seldom that his vivid imagination confined itself to the limits of his official instructions. The great scheme of London improvements, which was his last work, was only the expression and completion of the ideas of a life-time.

Some of the conceptions which he formed for public and private buildings may fitly find a brief record here. In a memoir, the interest of which is mainly architectural, it is in some sense even more necessary to refer to designs, which exist only on paper, than to buildings, which are before the public eye, and which speak for themselves. But independently of this consideration, it is not impossible that they may still have a practical value. That many of them pointed in directions of real public utility is obvious from the fact, that they have been since carried out with success, although by different methods, and by other hands. It is not unreasonable to conclude that those, yet unrealised, may show a similar insight into public requirements, and into the means of meeting them, and may therefore have some power of suggestiveness, in relation to the many improvements which we yet hope to see. It will (I think) appear, that, though his plans were comprehensive and often costly, too costly for immediate execution, they were always thoroughly practical. He had no sympathy with vague architectural dreams; nor did his artistic taste and power make him forget reality.

Clumber Park.—In his connection with private clients, he made, of course, many fruitless designs—admired in themselves, but rejected as too grand and costly. Of all these the one which most deserves notice, and which may well serve as a specimen of the whole, is the design made in 1857 for the late Duke of Newcastle, in respect of Clumber Park. For of all Sir C. Barry’s designs for a grand private residence, this was the largest and most comprehensive.

The house is situated in a rich and pleasant country, not far from Worksop, in an extensive park, and close to a beautiful lake. It is large in size, but singularly ineffective from the lowness of its external elevation—a defect aggravated by the fact that the main approach descends upon it. The interior contains several handsome rooms, but these ill-connected with one another. The house is entered by a small entrance and a low insignificant hall, and does not possess a single good staircase.

The cause of all these defects was obvious. The house had originally been much smaller, and additions had been made with no definite plan. In fact, the desire to preserve a room in the centre of the building, which had been the chief room of the old house, had caused the sacrifice of all good general effect in the much larger rooms and passages, which were added.

The late Duke saw the cause, and determined to remedy it. He had long been something more than an admirer of Sir Charles Barry as an architect. He had shown him much personal friendship, and given him a kindly and generous support, at a time when such support was invaluable. Accordingly he applied to Sir Charles to furnish a general plan, not with the idea of carrying it out at once, but in the hope that, by having it before his eyes, he might make some alterations, which were absolutely necessary, as an instalment of a satisfactory work, and “leave a record to those who came after him of a design, which they might be better able than he was to carry out.”

The work was naturally one in which Sir Charles took a more than professional interest. He saw that only an extensive scheme of alterations could utilize what existed, and add that which was still necessary.

The annexed plans will show the general design which he formed.

The first change was to turn the approach to a new entrance court, through an avenue which should mask the building till the visitor was close to it, and conceal the lowness of site and elevation. A new entrance hall led to a grand staircase, roofed over with a high cupola or dome, which might serve externally to give height and unity to a low and straggling building. The old west front was to be made a part of the interior of the building—a large new block of buildings being erected in front it, containing a grand range of galleries to unite the disconnected rooms of the building. The interior court, so formed, was to be treated in a somewhat novel manner, by being glazed over, and made into a winter garden, connected with the state-rooms on the new west front. Last, but not least, the private chapel, existing on the first floor in a very inconvenient position, for the use of the tenants as well as the

family, was removed, and a church erected on the east side of the house, with an access to it through a newly-formed conservatory.

Externally, the Italian garden was to be extended so as to encircle the house, and a range of conservatories added on the eastern side. For architectural effect, Sir Charles relied greatly on the central dome or cupola, and the new west front.

The plan was grand in scale and conception, and would have made Clumber one of the finest of noblemen’s seats in England. But it was so arranged that it could be executed in detail, and without interfering with the occupation of the house.

The only part of it as yet carried out is the erection of the new church by the present Duke, in the position indicated by Sir Charles, but from the designs of Mr. Thomas C. Hine, of Nottingham. Whether any other portion will be attempted is as yet uncertain. But the plan exists as a guide for all future work, to be modified, of course, as circumstances shall dictate. For the want of such plans, both in public and private buildings, it is lamentable to see how much labour and money are actually wasted.[108] In this point of view, as well as for its own grandeur of scheme, the plan for the new house at Clumber may have some interest to all.

But the great majority of these designs had reference to public buildings, and to some of these it will be well to refer.

Law Courts.—The first design was intended to meet a public need, which has been long increasing in urgency, and now, after twenty-five years of discussion, is to be supplied on a scale of unparalleled magnificence.

In 1840 the need of additional accommodation for the Law Courts attracted the attention of the Government. It was always felt that they could not remain as they are, insufficient in accommodation, and a mere excrescence upon Westminster Hall and the New Palace. To enlarge them was impossible without a serious and unwarrantable encroachment on New Palace Yard. Therefore, it was concluded that the old associations of Westminster Hall must be set aside, and the Courts must be removed, and on the removal Sir C. Barry was consulted. Two sites appeared to him eligible: one in the centre of Lincoln’s Inn Fields; the other, fronting the Strand near St. Clement Danes Church, between Lincoln’s Inn and the Temple. Of these sites the former was clear, and would involve no expense in the purchase of existing buildings. He believed that the area occupied would be so small in comparison to the whole, that no serious injury to one of the “lungs of London” need be apprehended; and, though he yielded to the outcry, which arose against the scheme, he did not recognise its justice.

The choice of the other site, instead of interfering with the free space so highly valuable in London, had undoubtedly the advantage of clearing away one of the worst of neighbourhoods.[109] To it accordingly his attention was afterwards directed.

In his first design he returned once more to the Greek style, which he had so long discarded. He considered that, for convenience sake, the principal floor ought not to be raised much above the street, and that, for acoustic reasons, the Courts themselves ought not to be high. This would make the whole design low, in comparison with the large extent of ground which it would necessarily cover; and to screen it by lofty piles of offices or residences would interfere with light and air. Under these circumstances, especially as he at first intended the building to be in an open space, visible on all sides, he determined to surround it with a classic peristyle, and seek massiveness and simplicity rather than height or grandeur. In Lincoln’s Inn Fields, grouped with, and screened by, masses of trees, so as not to be first visible at a great distance, he conceived that the old classic style might appear at advantage. But the scheme was afterwards abandoned, and the only Greek design of his later days fell with it.

In 1845 he was again examined before a Committee of the House of Commons, and submitted two designs; one occupying the second of the two sites above noticed, a space of about seven and three-quarter acres, which he proposed to clear for the purpose; the other involving the enclosure of New Palace Yard, and the extension of the New Palace itself.

But once more the scheme was deferred, to be now executed on the Strand site, but on a far different scale and by other hands.[110] In any case, it is a comfort to hope that the present unsightly “Law Courts” will no longer disgrace the magnificence which surrounds them.

National Gallery.—The alteration of the present National Gallery has formed a part of most schemes of metropolitan improvements. It was constantly in Sir C. Barry’s thoughts from the very time of its erection. He shared the universal opinion that its elevation was far too low and uninteresting, and this impression he embodied in a little sketch, made at the desire of Sir E. Cust, who was at that time a member of a Parliamentary Committee on the subject, and intended for his private information only. Unfortunately the fact of its existence oozed out, as such facts always do; and, what was worse, imperfect copies of it were made, and circulated without the author’s knowledge. He thought himself compelled to allow a correct representation of it to go abroad, and from this arose inevitably a serious difference between him and Mr. Wilkins, the architect of the National Gallery. Mr. Wilkins not unnaturally conceived its publication to be a breach of professional etiquette, and denounced it as such in no measured terms, especially when the success of Mr. Barry in the competition for the New Palace at Westminster still further embittered his feelings. But to this, as to the other attacks of the period, Mr. Barry made no reply, perhaps feeling himself in the wrong, certainly regretting the anomalous position into which he had been drawn, in his anxiety to rescue from comparative insignificance the building which occupies “the finest site in Europe.”

For some time the matter slept, till he was again consulted on the subject of enlargement of the Gallery, and made in 1848 a design for improving and extending the present building. He proposed to build over the vacant space in front, and advance the building to the line of the street. Several designs were made by him for the elevation, all having some great central mass, to overcome, as much as possible, the fatal effect of the Nelson Column upon the façade. He returned to the work again in 1852, in connection with larger schemes, and with designs upon a larger scale, for a building almost entirely new.

But nothing was done. The work, like all those which touch various interests, and which have to be debated upon in a popular assembly, presented difficulties, opened the door to various opinions, and ended for a time in mere discussion. Now again, as in the former case, it seems that substantial results may be hoped for. Another competition on a grand scale, though not attaining to the magnificence of the Law Courts, has been entered upon, and can hardly be allowed to be undertaken in vain.

These two great plans are now shortly to be carried out. There remain others, the execution of which must surely be a question only of time. For the work, which has been commenced, of remodelling our public offices, can hardly stop short. The Board of Trade, the Foreign Office, and the India Board cannot be allowed to exist as isolated specimens of a better style, contrasting with the meagre ineffectiveness of our older buildings.

Horse Guards.—In 1846 Sir Charles received instructions to prepare plans for the enlargement of the Horse Guards. To confine himself to the limits of instructions was hardly possible for him. He had long sighed over the insignificance of the building, and the want of all effect about the Parade. Insignificant in itself, it seemed still more unworthy of its position, as forming a part of the “Via Regia,” the Sovereign’s approach to Parliament. Ideas floated before his mind of a second “Place du Carrousel.” The opportunity was too tempting to be resisted. Accordingly he provided indeed for additional accommodation by an additional story; but, having done this, he made a further ideal design, raising the centre into a tower-like mass, introducing other alterations on all sides, and transforming the building into a grand composition. The Parade by ornamental enclosures was brought into architectural connection with the design; the road from the Mall led by a gentle sweep to a grand entrance opposite the building, and at this entrance the “Marble Arch,” then just removed from its position at Buckingham Palace, and cast upon the world for a habitation, was to be placed. The Wellington Statue, then also in search of a resting-place, was to form a central feature of the Parade, over which its illustrious original still presided. The other buildings near, the Admiralty, Treasury, &c., were to be brought into connection with its design; and a grand Place d’Armes was to be formed, second to none in Europe.

The idea was long a favourite one; he returned to it again in his “Metropolitan Improvements,” and his work at the Board of Trade shows what might have been effected by his talent for conversion. Nothing indeed was done; there was some doubt whether the foundation of the old building would bear the additions contemplated. The design itself, intrusted to the Government, was lost, and no trace of it can now be found. But, sooner or later, the work must be carried out, and, when it is carried out, it will in all probability follow the main lines of the arrangement which has thus been indicated.

British Museum.—Another design of his on a still larger scale had relation to an institution, in which he always felt the most lively interest.

The problem of securing sufficient accommodation for the collections at the British Museum—a problem which constantly recurs, as the collections increase, and the requirements of scientific men expand—at one time occupied Sir C. Barry’s most anxious thoughts. The simplest method of enlargement, by advancing the building towards Great Russell Street, was rendered impossible by the existence of the grand portico. Little could be done except to raise the building, unless additional space were occupied. This could only be done at considerable cost, larger in fact than would have been at that time contemplated, though not larger than will probably at some time or other be found necessary.

Accordingly a plan was prepared, confining the building to its actual site. It was Sir Charles’s opinion, an opinion which he strongly maintained in public before a Parliamentary Commission, that the collections of Natural History were out of place in the Museum. It appeared to him, that they should be associated with “Zoological Gardens;” so that the dead and living specimens of the animal creation might be seen in connection, and the relations of the present to the past, in contrast or similarity, be distinctly traced. On the present site of the Museum this would be impossible; but, were the collections removed, as for instance to South Kensington, room could be found for any number of live animals, and for museums large enough to content Professor Owen himself.

This being done, he would have devoted the whole building in Great Russell Street to literature and art. He proposed to meet the requirements of the former by surrendering the Natural History Rooms to the Library, and providing for readers, not in one great hall, as at present, but in a series of rooms of moderate size. The claims of art and antiquities were to be satisfied by forming a magnificent hall, which was to be nothing less than the whole central area of the building, roofed with glass, capable of containing even the Egyptian colossi, and unsurpassed in any building in Europe. There were some objections to it in detail, which he thought might be easily overcome. The idea was a grand one, and would have been carried out without serious difficulty. But M. Panizzi proposed a different scheme; the Government yielded to his authority, and the great Reading Room was formed.

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.

His design occupied the entire frontage to Piccadilly, which necessarily required an uniform treatment. It contained three great divisions divided by bold turrets, with similar turrets terminating the façade. The lower part of the central division was occupied by three great archways for carriages leading into the court. The western wing, and the upper stories of the centre, were occupied by the Royal Academy. The corresponding eastern wing was given up to scientific societies.

The front was simple and massive in character. The central archways were divided by bold Doric columns on plinths, and each of the wings had similar columns dividing its three bays of windows. A fully detailed cornice of the order terminated this story. On the principal story there were no columns. The central wall-surface was occupied by three bays of windows; the wings by niches, elaborately treated and occupied by statues.[111] The whole was surmounted by a noble cornice and balustrade.

The internal arrangement was simple. A grand staircase, entered from the covered carriage-ways, led to the principal story, which was occupied by magnificent suites of galleries lighted from above. The lower story was occupied by official rooms and residences, and schools for the various Professors.

All was ready to carry out the design. But a change of Government introduced new ideas, and the whole scheme slept, till it was revived under Lord Derby’s Government in 1866. The whole plan has now been changed; the great thoroughfare is to be done away with, and the Royal Academy building, designed by Mr. Sydney Smirke, R.A., is to occupy the centre of the whole site, with frontage not to Piccadilly, but to the northern side of the front court, entered by central archways from Piccadilly, as originally proposed. The rest of the building remains under the direction of Messrs. Banks and Barry, except the portion assigned to the London University on the Burlington Gardens front, which is intrusted to Mr. Pennethorne.

Crystal Palace.—His connection with the Commission of 1851 led him to volunteer another suggestion which would certainly have had a magnificent effect. He had been greatly interested in the original Exhibition building in Hyde Park, and (as will be seen elsewhere) had urged during its erection several alterations which he thought likely to improve it. Though he freely recognised the simplicity of its idea, and its practical efficiency, he regarded that building as ineffective and ugly. But this was a temporary building only, and therefore its design mattered little.

When, however, the present “Crystal Palace” was projected as a permanent building, with all the advantage of a splendid position, Sir Charles felt persuaded that its external effect would be utterly unworthy of its scale and site. He was not consulted on the matter; but, at the risk of apparent obtrusiveness, he ventured to send the directors a sketch, as a suggestion, for the benefit of their great undertaking. It exhibited a great dome, rising in the centre of the present building, grouped with