APPENDIX.

CONTENTS.

(A.) List of Architectural Designs. (B.) Letter to His Royal Highness the Prince Consort as to the South Kensington Scheme. (C.) Papers on the Remuneration Controversy. (a.) Letter of the Architect to the New Palace Commissioners in 1849. (b.) Treasury Minute of February, 1854. (c.) Reply of Sir C. Barry, March, 1854. (d.) Letter of J. M. White, Esq., July, 1855. (e.) Treasury Minute of January, 1856. (f.) Reply of Sir C. Barry of February, 1856. (g.) Conclusion of Treasury Minute of July, 1856. (h.) Brief Remarks of Sir C. Barry, 1856. (D.) List of Subscribers to the Memorial Statue.

(A.)

LIST OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNS OF SIR C. BARRY, R.A.

[The designs marked with an asterisk are known not to have been carried out at all; others may have been also fruitless. The date given is that of the first occurrence of the design in his diaries; in many cases the design was altered, or recurred to after being set aside.]

* Newington Church1821

Prestwich Church1822

Campfield Church, Manchester1822

St. Martin’s Outwich1822

Ringley Chapel1822

Oldham Church1823

Brighton Church (St. Peter’s)1824

Royal Institution of Fine Arts at Manchester1824

Saffron Hill Chapel and Schools1824

Sussex County Hospital1825

* Leeds Exchange1825

* Kensington Church1825

* Bognor Improvements1825

Holloway Church1825

Cloudesley Square Church1826

Ball’s Pond Church1826

Petworth Church Spire and Alterations1827

Brunswick Chapel, Brighton1827

* Drummond Castle Alterations1827

Stoke Newington Church Alterations1827

* Law Institution1828

* New Concert Room at Manchester1828

* Church at Streatham1828

** Pitt Press, Cambridge1829

Mr. Attree’s House, Brighton1829

Travellers’ Club1829

* Design for Highgate Church1830

Holloway Schools1830

* Charing Cross Hospital1830

Brighton Park1830

* Birmingham Town Hall1830

Additions to Dulwich College1831

* Westminster Hospital1831

* City Club1832

Birmingham Grammar School1833

* Manchester Club1833

College of Surgeons Alterations1833

* Design for National Gallery1833

* Woburn Abbey Alterations1834

Bowood (Alterations)1834

* Holland House1834

* Islington Chapel1834

Elizabethan House, for W. Currie, Esq.1834

Kingston Hall Alterations1835

Stafford House Alterations1835

Design for New Palace at Westminster, begun Aug. 23rd 1835

Manchester Unitarian Chapel1836

Manchester Athenæum1836

Corsham House1836

Walton House1837

* Worcester College, Oxford1837

Reform Club1837

* Buchanan House (Duke of Montrose)1837

Highclere House1837

Trentham Hall1838

University College, Oxford1839

* Petworth House Alterations1839

Trafalgar Square1840

* New Law Courts1840

Kiddington Hall1840

* Drumlanrig Castle1840

** Pall Mall Alterations1840

Pentonville Model Prison1841

Colonel Fox’s House, Addison Road1841

Dulwich College Schools1841

Hurstpierpoint Church1841

Piccadilly Alterations1841

Harewood House1842

Ambassador’s Palace at Constantinople1842

Duncombe Park1843

Ensham Hall1843

* Thames Embankment1843

Board of Trade1844

Dunrobin Castle1844

* New Law Courts1844

* Horse Guards’ Alterations1845

* Pedestal of Wellington Statue1847

Keyham Factory1847

Shrubland1848

* National Gallery Alterations1848

Gawthorpe1849

* Royal Scottish Academy1849

* Elvaston Castle Alterations1849

Canford Manor1850

Bridgewater House1850

College of Surgeons Alterations1850

Cliefden1851

Dowlais Schools1851

Edgbaston Hall (Alterations)1852

* Northumberland House Alterations1852

Mr. Lyon’s House1852

* Crystal Palace Design with Domes1852

* British Museum Alterations1853

* Westminster Improvements1853

* National Gallery1853

* Royal Academy, Burlington House1855

* Clumber1857

* Government Offices Concentration1857

* Duxbury Hall1859

Halifax Town Hall1859

(B.)

LETTER TO HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE PRINCE CONSORT AS TO THE SOUTH KENSINGTON SCHEME.

Westminster, 15th October, 1853.

Sir,—In considering Your Royal Highness’s noble project and detailed plans, for concentrating all that appertains to Art and Science in one Institution at Kensington, certain doubts and difficulties as to the efficient realisation of such a comprehensive project upon that site have occurred to me, which, as a Member of the Royal Commission for the Great Exhibition of 1851, I venture, with great respect and deference, to submit for Your Royal Highness’s consideration, together with a suggestion for meeting what appear to me to be the difficulties of the case.

I entirely agree with Your Royal Highness as to the great advantages, that would result from a concentration of such objects in one locality; but, having regard to the particular locality in question, I fear that it would be found to be neither convenient nor large enough for such a comprehensive purpose.

In laying out a great city, de novo, if an Acropolis in its centre of 150 acres could be set apart for the purpose, or if a second Fire of London were to afford the opportunity of appropriating that extent of space to the object in the locality of Russell Square, the project would, in my opinion, be not only feasible, but most desirable.

The doubts and misgivings which I entertain as to the site at Kensington for the comprehensive purposes to which it is proposed to be applied, are—Firstly, That it is far too much to the west for the general convenience of the Metropolis, particularly for the industrial community and the working-classes at the eastern and central portions of the town. Secondly, That to carry out efficiently the principle of concentration as regards both Art and Science, it would not be large enough to accommodate the National Library and the entire collection of arts and antiquities at the British Museum, which should, in my opinion, form a part of such an institution; neither is it probable that the Learned Societies, whose meetings are usually in the evening, would be induced to form part of the Institution in such a distant locality. Thirdly, That it would render several old established and popular National Institutions, which have been erected at considerable cost, more or less useless; such as the British Museum, the present National Gallery and Royal Academy, the Museum of Economic Geology, and the Society of Arts, &c. And, Lastly, The enormous and indefinite cost that it would be necessary to incur, and the great lapse of time and inconvenience resulting therefrom, that might, and probably would, ensue, before such a large and costly institution would be completed, so as to render its advantages and usefulness thoroughly available.

From a rough calculation which I have formed of the buildings shown in Your Royal Highness’s plan for the National Gallery alone (which contains 1900 squares of buildings—i. e., is 30 per cent. larger than the entire British Museum), taking the Palace at Caserta, with which, in point of length and proposed design, it would so nearly assimilate, as a type of the style to be adopted—the cost would be little less than a million and a half of money; and to erect the other buildings, containing about 3995 squares, as shown in the same plan, within the main roads only, in a similar style, together with the enclosure, laying out of the ground, and formation of roads, &c., would probably cost an additional two millions and a half.

With respect to the advantage of this site for the national pictures, as regards immunity from soot and dust, I fear that too much importance is attached to that circumstance, owing to the enormous neighbourhood both existing and arising around it, and to the consequences of its position as regards the denser portions of the Metropolis; for in the more lofty and airy neighbourhood of Hyde Park Gardens, Westbourne Terrace, &c., much inconvenience is felt from the falling of blacks, particularly during an easterly wind. From this and other considerations, I am inclined to think that the heart of London is not more subject to the effects of a sooty atmosphere than its immediate suburbs. All furnace smoke is likely to be soon abated under the provisions of the recent Act of Parliament for that purpose, and it is to be hoped that ere long such a stigma upon Science as the continuance of a similar nuisance from open fires will be removed. As to dust, the site at Kensington, with the open and airy spaces and macadamized roads surrounding it, is likely, I think, to suffer as much from that inconvenience, as the crowded and more frequented parts of London, particularly where the streets are paved with granite.

With reference to the capabilities of the site, in an æsthetic point of view, its lowness and flatness are not favourable to a fine architectural display, and the loftiness of the buildings which it is proposed to erect upon it, if properly proportioned to their lengths, will effectually shut out all view of the loftier background of Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens, with their fine trees, when viewed from the principal road out of Brompton.

Having thus described the doubts and misgivings which I entertain with respect to the site at Kensington, and as to the possibility of carrying out a perfect and efficient concentration of all that relates to science, art, and literature upon that spot, I proceed to notice the advantages and capabilities, which the existing institutions, to which I have adverted, would offer for such purposes, conjointly with the newly-acquired site.

First.

As regards the present British Museum, which I would propose to call the “British Museum of Arts and Literature.”

This Institution occupies the most central portion of the Metropolis; its site is lofty and commanding; the soil good, dry, and well drained; it is open to the north, and has 82 acres of open space in the squares which adjoin or are immediately contiguous to it; it contains at present 1480 squares of building, and stands upon above 8-1/2 acres of ground, which, by the addition of the surrounding property, with additional buildings upon it, might be increased to 3269 squares of building, and 13-1/2 acres of ground; it has already cost the country little short of a million of money; it is in a good neighbourhood, well calculated for residences for professors and officers of the Institution, and it has the advantage of the London University as an adjunct in its immediate neighbourhood; it is, moreover, a very popular Institution, and its site only requires the clearing away of a portion of the shabby neighbourhood to the south of it, and the opening up of a new approach to it in that direction, to render it an unexceptionable site for a great National Institution.

I propose that this Institution should not only be devoted to Art and Literature, but also to the accommodation of the Learned Societies. For this purpose it would be necessary to purchase the whole of the surrounding property, extending to Montague Street and Russell Square on the east, to Montague Place on the north, and to Bedford Square and Charlotte Street on the west; to cover over the quadrangle with a glass roof, and erect additional buildings on the west side of the present buildings, as recommended in a report, which I recently made to the Government, with a view to increase of the accommodation within the limits of the existing building.

The quadrangle and the ground story of the building might then be appropriated to the antiquities; the whole of the principal floor to the library, including the manuscripts, prints, and drawings: and the reading-rooms and the upper floor to the national pictures, which floor, with certain modifications that could be made at no great cost, might be admirably adapted to receive them, and which would not only accommodate the present collection, including the cartoons at Hampton Court, and my namesake’s pictures at the Society of Arts, but afford space for a future increase of it to nearly eight times its present amount, or more than double the extent allotted to the pictures in the Louvre. To effect these arrangements, it would be necessary to remove by degrees, as other accommodation could be provided, the whole of the Natural History collection, which at present occupies a large portion of the one-pair floor, as well as other portions of the building, to Kensington. On the surrounding property recommended to be purchased, I would propose that as leases fall in, or otherwise by degrees, other buildings for such progressive enlargement of the Institution, as circumstances may render necessary, should be erected, by which the requirements of the country in respect to Art and Literature may be met for ages to come.

If these suggestions, as far as they relate to the limits of the present building, were carried out immediately, it would be necessary to incur the estimated cost of the additions and transformations, recommended in my recent report to the Government, amounting to £105,000

To which should be added for the requisite modifications of the one-pair floor, in order to adapt it for the reception of the national pictures 25,000

Making a total of £130,000

According to present requirements, however, this expenditure might be spread over a period of two or even three years; but upon such an arrangement, as would allow of depositing the present collection of national pictures in the rooms prepared for their reception, and providing for the pressing wants of the library, at the end of the first year.

The Institution, even in such a limited and incomplete state, would even then exceed the accommodation for galleries of art and books provided by the Parisian Bibliothèque Impériale and Louvre combined.

For the realisation of the entire project ultimately, it would be desirable that the Government should immediately purchase the fee simple of the whole of the property, which surrounds, and is immediately contiguous to, the present building. It is most fortunate that this property, at present belongs entirely to one freeholder, a noble duke, whose liberality and patriotism are proverbial, and who therefore would probably feel disposed to part with his interest in it for public purposes at a moderate amount. The sum that would be required to acquire this property, and cover it with the buildings to which I have already adverted, would probably amount ultimately to less than a million of money; but, inasmuch as the accommodation to be provided for in these suggested buildings would not at present, nor probably for a considerable time to come, be needed, it would not be necessary or desirable to do more now, than purchase the fee simple of the property in question, and allow it to remain, as it is, so as to be remunerative to the Crown, until required from time to time for the purposes which have been proposed, leaving the expenditure upon the new buildings, proposed to be erected upon it, to be spread over such a period of years as may be considered prudent.

Secondly.

As regards the newly-acquired site at Kensington.

Upon this site I would propose that an institution should be founded, to be called the “National Gallery of Science,” in its various application to arts, manufactures, and commerce. For this purpose the distance of its locality from the centre of the Metropolis is comparatively of less importance than it would be in respect of an Institution for Art; for the feeling of the country at large, as regards art, is still wofully deficient, and can only be fostered and improved by placing the finest exemplars of all ages in a central position, in the hands, as it were, of the whole of the Metropolis, so that all of its inhabitants, and all who visit it from the provinces, particularly the industrial and working-classes, may have the benefit of being able constantly and easily to inspect them, and thus become familiarised, and even imbued, with their principles and excellence. With respect to science, the country is already pre-eminent; and a distant locality therefore of an institution for its encouragement is not likely to deter that portion of the community, who are interested in it, and are anxious to profit by its advantages, from being ready perchance to go out of the way for the purpose.

It appears by the plan of the site at Kensington, that it consists of about 88 acres, of which about 52 acres lie between the projected main roads forming its principal subdivision, upon which are proposed to be erected the National Gallery, containing 1900 squares of building, and also the Colleges of Art and Science and the Museums of Industrial Art and Patented Inventions, containing together 3995 squares, or in the whole 5895 squares of building. About 10 acres of the site appear to be devoted to roads, and the remainder, about 26 acres, to outlying plots of ground, of irregular form, proposed for the accommodation of the learned societies, a music hall, official residences, &c., &c. The wedge-like form of ground towards Kensington Gore, which, although in the midst of the site, forms no part of it, having a frontage of about 320 feet to the high-road, and extending about 1100 feet into the principal subdivision of the ground already mentioned, is a serious drawback upon any architectural display, that might be made towards Hyde Park. This is less to be lamented, however, as the aspect and the point of view from higher ground are not favourable for such a display. The southern portion of the ground is therefore most properly proposed to be appropriated to that object, and the proposed general distribution of the buildings seems to me to be judiciously arranged for its attainment. If, however, my suggestions should be considered worthy of adoption, it would perhaps be desirable to alter the entire distribution, and it certainly would not be necessary to provide for buildings of such a commanding and costly character, as would be the case if the idea should be entertained of uniting all the requirements of art, science, and literature in one institution upon that spot. The only buildings that would be required, according to my suggestions, would be museums for the exhibition of zoological, botanical, and mineralogical specimens, and for patented inventions; a menagerie for living specimens in the department of natural history; a library of science, and theatres, with laboratories, for public lectures in every branch of science, combined with a botanical garden and accommodation for living specimens of the animated kingdom; and such accommodation might in the first instance be fully obtained within the limits of the principal plot of ground between the proposed main roads. The off-lying plots might be held in reserve for any future increase of the Institution that may in the course of time be required, or a portion of them might be at once appropriated to workshops for the practical teaching of the industrial arts.

The valuable collections in the department of Natural History at present at the British Museum, the entire collection of the Museum of Economic Geology, the Trade Museum of the Society of Arts, the collection of patented inventions under the charge of the Patent Office, and possibly one or both of the private collections of the Regents Park and Surrey Zoological Gardens, if concentrated upon this spot, would form such a valuable and instructive collection, as could not fail to excite a great interest in the institution amongst all classes of the community.

It is difficult to estimate what might be the ultimate cost of such an institution; but it is probable, I think, that much less than a million of money would cover the amount of it. This expenditure, however, might be spread over a course of years, and, as the institution would add so much to public enjoyment and instruction, and would be practically so advantageous to the arts, manufactures, and commerce of the country, Parliament would not be likely to be backward in voting from time to time the requisite supplies.

Such an institution, when fully carried out, might then vie with the Jardin des Plantes, which it would much exceed in acreage, and the Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers of the French capital combined, and bear an honourable comparison with those noble institutions.

Thirdly.

As regards the present National Gallery and Royal Academy of Art.

The building containing these two Institutions occupies the finest position which London affords for architectural display, and is unfortunately the meanest and most ineffective of its public buildings. It stands upon rather more than an acre of ground, nearly one half of which is wasted in the Fore Court, under a mistaken notion that it was desirable to let in a view of the portico of St. Martin’s Church from Pall Mall East, which, owing to the tower of the church being now seen above it, has lost all the importance and grandeur of effect which it formerly had when seen from Old St. Martin’s Lane.

The present edifice contains 278 squares of building, which I propose should be increased to 448 squares, by removing the present useless portico and other columns and projections which now break up its front, building upon the wasted portion of its site, namely the fore court, and placing the staircase on the site of the present sculpture-room. With these and other additions and alterations, assuming that the national pictures are removed, I propose that the building should be devoted exclusively to the teaching of Art in all its branches, and the periodical exhibition of modern works, for which purpose it should be divided between the Royal Academy of Fine Art, and the Metropolitan School of Design for practical and decorative Art.

The present wall space for pictures, which amounts to about 16,920 superficial feet, would, by the proposed additions and alterations, reach 54,720 feet; and ample space would be provided for sculpture, casts, &c., as well as for the schools, lecture-rooms, libraries, and other accommodation required by each department, so that the business of the schools need not be interrupted, as is now the case at the Royal Academy, during the entire period of the annual exhibition of modern productions.

The addition, which I would propose to make in front of the existing building for the purpose of masking its deformity, and shutting out of view from the south all the unsightly objects on the rising ground at the back which are now seen above it, would be in the Italian style of architecture, about 430 feet in length and nearly 100 feet in height, with flanking towers about 30 feet square, rising to a height of 130 feet. The composition would consist of two orders of architecture in the façade generally, and three in the towers, elevated upon a lofty arcaded ground story, affording covered access to the building for carriages to the extent of 100 feet in length. In the centre of the front in each of the orders above the ground story I would propose open loggiæ, about 100 feet long, to enable visitors to enjoy the view to the south, and obtain a little fresh air as a relief to the often oppressive and wearisome effect produced by an inspection of very extensive galleries of works of art.

The cost of such additions and alterations as I have suggested would probably amount to about 135,000l., and as the Royal Academy would be much benefited by the increased and improved accommodation that they would afford, a portion of its funded property might fairly be required as a contribution to that expenditure, and the remainder might be reasonably looked for from Parliament, as being for the permanent accommodation of a new national institution. Such a building as that proposed, upon such a noble and commanding site as that of Trafalgar Square, could not fail to have a very striking effect, and would dominate over that portion of the Metropolis, as the Vatican does over Rome.

Fourthly.

As regards the present Museum of Economic Geology, in Jermyn Street.

This institution occupies a good, well-frequented, and nearly central position, and has recently been formed by the country at an expenditure of about 40,000l. It contains 112 squares of building, including a fine theatre for lectures, a mineralogical museum, and good accommodation for various scientific purposes.

I would propose that the entire collection at this institution should be transferred to the proposed College of Science at Kensington, and that it should thereupon be set apart and fitted up as a National Polytechnic Institution, for amusing and instructive demonstrations and lectures in science, with a library and schools for engineering drawing, for the use principally of the industrial and working classes of an evening, which, judging from past experience in the institution itself, and the success that attends other private institutions of a similar nature, could not, I think, fail to become extremely popular and useful.

Fifthly and Lastly.

As regards the Society of Arts, Manufactures, and Commerce, in the Adelphi.

This old-established Institution, being denuded, as I have proposed, of its paintings and its Trade Museum, Library, &c., might be rendered useful as a place for meeting and for lectures, principally of an evening, on all subjects connected with the statistics of trade and commerce, &c., and a rendezvous for all, who seek information connected therewith.

Having now enumerated the capabilities and advantages that our existing institutions afford, conjointly with the newly acquired site at Kensington, for the important objects to which I have adverted, I have only to add that I have been induced to associate Art, Literature, and Learning in one institution as being branches of knowledge of a kindred nature illustrative of each other, and likely to work well together, and to separate from them Science, which has less affinity with those branches of knowledge, except in so far as it may be applied to the useful arts and manufactures of the country, for which the means and accommodation are proposed to be provided at Kensington.

I am, in short, induced to recommend this separation of Art and Science from a strong conviction that the site at Kensington is too distant from the centre of the Metropolis, too small, and too low for a perfect, efficient, and convenient concentration of all that relates to both; and that it would be far better to improve and add to the usefulness of all our existing Institutions for the encouragement of Art, Literature, and Learning, and turn the site at Kensington to the best account for the encouragement of Science, particularly in its application to the arts, manufactures, and commerce of the country, than to attempt the more comprehensive project proposed with reference to that site, which, for the reasons I have assigned, would I fear be likely to meet with many financial difficulties, delays, and disappointments, and excite, as a national institution, invidious comparisons with the newly erected Crystal Palace, which occupies one of the most commanding and beautiful situations in the country, and is placed in the midst of about 280 acres of ornamental grounds, forming an institution with objects akin to those of all our existing public institutions, combined and wholly effected by private enterprise at an ultimate cost of probably more than two millions of money.

I have the honour, &c., (Signed) Charles Barry.

(C.)

PAPERS ON THE REMUNERATION CONTROVERSY.

(a.) LETTER OF THE ARCHITECT TO THE NEW PALACE COMMISSIONERS IN 1849.

To the Commissioners appointed to superintend the Completion of the New Palace at Westminster.

Great George Street, 6th February, 1849.

My Lord and Gentlemen,—The time is now arrived, when I deem it necessary to call your attention to a matter of great personal interest to myself. I allude to the remuneration for my past services as architect of the New Palace at Westminster.

As I am now in a position to prove the inadequacy of the amount of the sum originally proposed to me, and the insufficiency of the grounds upon which that proposition was made, I feel that I ought not any longer delay to request an early settlement of my claims.

You are doubtless aware that the proposition originally made to me by the Government in 1839 was, that I should receive the sum of 25,000l. for the labour and responsibility to be imposed upon me in the superintendence, direction and completion of the intended edifice, and that I was induced to accede conditionally to that proposition, in the belief that it was made to me in the absence of a due appreciation of the enormous extent of that labour and responsibility, and that any attempt on my part, at that time, to prove the inadequacy of the sum proposed would have been fruitless. I was further induced to take this course from having then entered upon the duties of my appointment as architect of the New Palace, for more than nineteen months, when I had already made extensive and costly arrangements to enable me to carry on the works; so that if, instead of acceding conditionally to the proposition, I had adopted the alternative of relinquishing the employment, which at the time occurred to me, I could not have done so without a considerable sacrifice. I preferred, therefore, to postpone all further application on the subject, until I should be in a condition to prove incontestably the full extent of my services, and then to rely upon the Government for a just and liberal determination of the question.

As it is possible that you may not be acquainted with the whole of the circumstances under which this proposition was made to me, I think it right to trouble you with the following short narrative of the transaction:—

When my original design for the New Palace at Westminster had been approved, and the original estimate had been subjected to a searching examination by the department of Woods and Works, and some discussion also, as I was informed, had taken place in a Committee of the House of Commons respecting my remuneration, the Government, in 1837, conferred upon me the appointment of architect, to carry into effect that design, but without making any stipulation whatever relative to the remuneration for my services; and I was ordered to proceed immediately with the work, which I accordingly commenced on the 3rd of July in that year.

As this order was conveyed to me unconditionally, I had no reason to doubt but that my remuneration would be of the customary amount.

On the 1st March, however, in the year 1839, I had the first official intimation that such was not proposed to be the case, in a letter, which I then received from the Office of Woods, enclosing a copy of a letter to that effect from the Lords of the Treasury to the Commissioners of Woods, &c., of the 29th of the preceding month, no explanation having been required of me, nor any previous communication even made to me, upon the subject.

The purport of this letter from the Lords of the Treasury was to concur in a recommendation of the Commissioners of Woods, made in a Report to their Lordships on the subject of my remuneration in February, 1838, and to convey to those Commissioners the official sanction of the Government for acting upon it. The recommendation was to the effect that the sum of 25,000l. would be a fair and reasonable remuneration for the labour and responsibility to be imposed upon me in the superintendence, direction and completion of the intended edifice; and the Commissioners of Woods stated that they were of that opinion, after having given their best consideration to “all the circumstances of the case, the extent and importance of the buildings, the nature and description of the several works, the very large expenditure contemplated in my estimate, and the period within which it was proposed that such expenditure should be incurred.”

After having made a fruitless application for the particulars of the grounds upon which such recommendation was made, I was induced, for the reasons before stated, to accede conditionally to the proposition founded upon it, under a protest, however, as to the inadequacy of the amount proposed, and with an intimation that I should offer proof of its inadequacy, when the building was in such an advanced state as to allow of a competent judgment being formed on the subject, which protest, as well as the reiteration of it on various subsequent occasions, has never been contested.

It will be seen that the proposition had special reference to the plans and estimates then delivered and approved, and that the conditions of it were based upon those documents. I could easily prove, if it were necessary, that those conditions have been annulled by acts of the Government, and by circumstances over which I had no control; but, assuming for the present that they have been strictly adhered to, I am anxious to show, not only that the grounds which have been alleged for reducing the amount of the architect’s customary remuneration in this case, are erroneous, but that I have been called upon, in carrying into effect the design adopted, to do much more than is usual, or than could have been anticipated in the ordinary discharge of my professional duties.

In the first place the Commissioners of Woods state that they have given their best consideration to “all the circumstances of the case.”

With all due respect for the nobleman and gentlemen who filled the office of Commissioners of Woods at that time, I must contend, that, from the want of professional knowledge and experience, they were incompetent of themselves to form any just opinion on the subject, and they did not, to my knowledge, take the opinion of any one really competent to advise them thereon.

2ndly. They adduce “the extent and importance of the work,” as a ground for reducing the architect’s accustomed remuneration. I submit, that the unusual extent and importance of the work is a reason rather for increasing than diminishing the customary remuneration of the architect, inasmuch as his responsibilities are more than proportionally increased, and the demands upon his taste, skill, and judgment are far greater, than in works of less magnitude and importance. For with respect to extensive and complicated plans, such as that of the New Palace at Westminster, where requirements of great number and widely different character have to be combined and arranged, with a view not only to insure convenience in detail, but also the utmost perfection that is attainable as a whole, it will be manifest to all, who are able to form a correct opinion on the subject, that the labour and skill required are immeasurably greater, than in buildings of comparatively small dimensions, designed with reference to one single object.

3rdly. The Commissioners of Woods allude to “the nature and description of the work” in support of their recommendation. I am not exactly aware what meaning may have been intended to be conveyed by these remarks. If it is meant that the skill and labour required to produce the building in question is less than are required in other public buildings or private works, I cannot admit the truth of such an assumption. As however the New Palace at Westminster is now sufficiently advanced to allow of an accurate judgment being formed as to the amount of labour, skill, and responsibility, that has been incurred in producing it, I invite a comparison between it and any other public building of modern times; and I think it will be evident, even to the uninitiated, that in point of variety of design, elaboration of details, and difficulties of combination and construction, the labour and responsibility incurred is much greater, than in any other modern edifice that can be mentioned.

I may here add, as a ground for an increase rather than a reduction of the customary remuneration in respect of Public Works, that owing to the trouble, delays, and perplexities attendant upon official communications and requirements, the architect’s labours and anxieties are much greater than those which he has to incur in private practice; and, if this be true of public buildings of an ordinary character, it may be easily conceived, that those labours and anxieties have been incomparably greater in carrying into effect such a work as the New Palace at Westminster, in which not only the Government, but Committees of Parliament, and even the public, have unceasingly assumed the right of criticism and control. As one proof, among many others that might be adduced, of the enormous amount of labour that has already devolved upon me, in conducting this great national work to its present state, it will not be irrelevant to mention, that no less than between 8000 and 9000 original drawings and models have been prepared for it, a large portion of which have emanated from my own hand, while the whole of the remainder have been made under my own immediate direction and supervision.

4thly. “The very large amount of expenditure contemplated” is stated by the Commissioners of Woods as another ground for reducing the architect’s accustomed remuneration. I submit that in a work of the complicated and elaborate description of the New Palace at Westminster, the amount of expenditure incurred is a fair and just criterion of the amount of skill and labour required in producing it, and that, owing to the number of years over which the expenditure has extended, the annual amount upon an average has not been greater than upon other public works erected during the same period, upon which, up to the present time, the architect has in all cases been paid his accustomed amount of remuneration.

The 5th and last ground alleged by the Commissioners of Woods in support of the Government proposition is, “The period within which it was proposed that the contemplated expenditure should be incurred.” This ground was assigned upon the assumption that the entire edifice might be completed within six years; but, owing to the limited portions of the site that could from time to time be cleared, in consequence of the necessity which has constantly existed of providing accommodation for the business of Parliament upon a part of that site, it was found to be impossible, particularly in the early stages of the work, to employ an unlimited number of men, or to expend more upon an average than between 80,000l. and 90,000l. per annum. On this account, and also in consequence of the delays and difficulties occasioned by the extraordinary nature and extent of the warming and ventilating arrangements, and the difficulty of complying with Dr. Reid’s requirements in respect of them, the peculiar nature of the site, the difficulty of obtaining accurate information as to the ever-varying accommodation required, the delay in official communications and in obtaining authorities, and the limitation of the supplies of late years, the time occupied upon the works has already amounted to nearly twice the period originally assumed for their completion; and it is obviously impossible, while such contingencies are likely to impede their progress, to say how much longer it will be before the entire work will be completed.

Having now, I trust, shown the insufficiency of the grounds assigned by the Commissioners of Woods for reducing the amount of the architect’s customary recompense, with reference to the New Palace at Westminster, I have to observe that not only have I, in that capacity, discharged all those duties by which I am justly entitled to that amount of remuneration, but I have been called upon to do more than is usual, or than could have been anticipated. I allude particularly to the unusual amount of labour and anxiety in carrying out, under Dr. Reid’s direction, during a period of nearly five years, structural arrangements for warming and ventilating the entire edifice, to an extent never before attempted to be applied to any public building whatever, and much beyond what I considered to be necessary. I have also been called upon to remodel the internal fittings of the two Houses, and to vary from time to time the arrangements and appropriation of the offices, division lobbies, &c., of each House, owing to the changes made in the mode of conducting the business of Parliament, and the vagueness and insufficiency of the information afforded for the preparation of the original design, which information, upon being reconsidered by Committees appointed from time to time during the progress of the works, has been found in many instances to be altogether at variance with the requirements. Those who are aware of the consequences of making a single alteration in one part of a large and complicated plan, and the extensive changes to which it often leads in others, will readily conceive, that, in order to comply with the demands above alluded to, the entire plan and construction of the building has had to be modified and recast over and over again, occasioning a considerable amount of additional thought and labour, and an increase of drawings much beyond what are required under ordinary circumstances.

I consider, therefore, that I am justly entitled to at least the customary remuneration in respect of the outlay contemplated in the original design and estimate; and I beg to add that the whole of the arguments, which I have urged in favour of such remuneration, apply with equal force to the expenditure upon extra works sanctioned by the Government or Parliament; but to these it is scarcely necessary to observe that the proposal for a limited amount of remuneration can have no reference.

I consider also that I am entitled to a further remuneration for special services not connected with my professional duties in respect of the works of the building. These services consist of attendances upon the Fine Arts Commission, reports and numerous drawings prepared in compliance with the orders of that Commission, frequent communications with its secretary, and the artists appointed for the decoration of the interior of the New Palace; attendances upon Committees of Parliament in every session from the year 1841 to the present time, preparing data required by those Committees, giving and correcting of evidence, making up voluminous returns in compliance with orders of the House of Commons (one of which occupied myself and clerks for nearly four months); attendances to give evidence upon two Commissions of Inquiry with reference to Dr. Reid’s system of warming and ventilating, preparing plans and other documents for the use of those Commissions; conferences and communications with the Law Officers of the Crown, with reference to contracts, disputed claims, and threatened legal proceedings; numerous reports and estimates required from time to time by the Office of Woods, negotiations and arrangements consequent upon the establishment of the Government workshops at Thames Bank, and the superintendence of the collection of above 3000 casts of the best specimens of mediæval art to be found in this as well as in foreign countries for the use of the wood-carvers; preparing plans, estimates, &c., for providing accommodation for the whole of the public records of the kingdom, and other miscellaneous services.

On account of the whole of the above-mentioned services I have received in the course of ten years the sum of 24,735l. 3s. 2d. in part of the 25,000l. originally proposed, or, after deducting my expenses, an income at the rate of about 1,500l. per annum, which income, if based upon the principle of a fixed remuneration, would in proportion to the further extent of time occupied in completing the building, suffer a corresponding decrease; and, when it is considered that in consequence of my appointment as the architect of the New Palace at Westminster I have been obliged to give up more than two-thirds of a lucrative practice, and have to my knowledge been deprived of employment to a very considerable extent, from a prevalent feeling which has existed that it was out of my power to attend to any other works; and when also it is borne in mind that this income constitutes the whole of the emolument which I derive, either directly or indirectly, from my appointment, it is scarcely necessary for me to add that such an income does not by any means recompense me for the labours, responsibilities, and sacrifices which I have incurred.

The following is an account of the expenditure upon the building, exclusive of the river embankment wall, up to 31st December, 1848:—

£ s. d.

Amount already advanced on account of works comprised in the original estimate of 707,104l. 472,000 0 0

On account of extra works in the embankment of the river and in the foundations of the building, the new basement story, additional residences and offices, central tower, stone carving, and all structural arrangements connected with warming, ventilating, &c. &c., which could not have been foreseen, and which, consequently, form no part of the original design and estimate, amounting to 210,842 16 2

On account of extra finishings, works of decoration, library and other fittings, and for fixtures, furniture, upholstery, &c., expressly excluded from the original estimate, amounting to 139,415 3 0

On account of miscellaneous items, taking down and shoring up old buildings, new roofs and additions to speaker’s late residence and other old buildings, temporary roof and coverings, clerks of works’ offices, casts of specimens for wood-carvers, &c. &c., amounting to 19,372 18 9

Total £ 841,630 17 11

On the above amount of expenditure therefore I claim, for the reasons which I have adduced, the accustomed remuneration of five per cent.:

£ s. d. £ s. d.

Or 42,081 10 0

Upon which I have received on account 24,735 4 2

Leaving a balance of £ 17,346 6 10

And for special or extraneous services during a period of ten years, as above enumerated 5,256 0 0

Amount now claimed £ 22,602 6 10

Although I have no doubt that I should be able to prove, upon a quantum meruit valuation, that I am justly entitled to a much higher remuneration for my services in this case than that of the customary commission demanded under ordinary circumstances, I propose to adhere to the long-established and generally received standard of charge adopted by the profession generally, in the hope that by so doing all controversy or contention on the subject may be avoided; and when the amount of the claim which, in consequence, I am now willing to receive as a recompense in full for my past services, is fairly considered with reference to the labour, responsibility, and sacrifices incurred in conducting, under very peculiar and trying circumstances, the largest and most elaborate architectural work ever, perhaps, undertaken at one time in this or any other country, to which I have devoted almost exclusively the best period of my professional life; and when also it is contrasted with the incomes of other professions, such as those of the law, medicine, civil engineering, &c., which, it is well known, vary from 12,000l. to 20,000l. per annum, and even upwards; and when also the important fact, to which I have before alluded, is borne in mind, that every architect appointed to the superintendence of public works in this country, both before and since the date of my engagement, has been paid the full amount of the customary commission, I cannot doubt but that it will be generally admitted, not only that I am fully justified in the demand which I now make, but that I have not unduly estimated the value of my services as the architect of such an important national work as the New Palace at Westminster.

I have, &c. (Signed) Charles Barry.

(b.) TREASURY MINUTE OF FEBRUARY, 1854. From the Treasury to Sir Charles Barry.

Treasury Chambers, 8 February, 1854.

Sir,—I am commanded by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury to acquaint you that my Lords have had under their consideration a letter addressed by you to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of your remuneration as architect for the New Houses of Parliament.

It appears that, when these works were first undertaken the estimate for the shell of the building only was 707,104l., and that Lord Bessborough, who was at that time Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests, and, as such, charged with the Department of Works, agreed that the remuneration to the architect should be 25,000l., and you state that you accepted that arrangement, but under protest that it was unprofessional. I have to state that my Lords have carefully examined into the circumstances which were likely to have influenced Lord Bessborough in fixing the remuneration of the architect at that sum, and they find that, for many years prior, the rate of commission paid by the Board of Works to the most eminent architects of the day was 3 per cent. They find that the attached architects of the Board of Works, viz., Sir John Soane, Sir Robert Smirke, and Mr. John Nash, were, by Treasury Regulations, paid at the rate of 3 per cent. on the public works executed under their direction. It is true that those gentlemen had also salaries of 500l. each attached to their offices, but those salaries were understood to be a remuneration for the professional advice, which they were expected to afford to the Government, for which they received no other pay, and not as any part of their remuneration as architects for the performance of works placed under their care. On these terms the following works were performed by those eminent architects:—

New Stamp and Legacy-Duty Office, Somerset House;

Military Depot, Tooley Street;

New Buildings, British Museum;

New Post Office;

Custom House (Restoration);

New Courts of Judicature, Westminster;

Insolvent Debtors’ Court;

Committee Rooms, House of Lords;

Library and Committee Rooms, House of Commons;

Whitehall Chapel (Restoration);

New State Paper Office;

New Royal Mews, Pimlico;

King’s Stand, Ascot;

And my Lords find that the only exception to this rule was as regards the New Palace at Buckingham Gate.

With regard to that work, Mr. Nash was paid at the regular rate of 3 per cent. up to September, 1826, when it was raised to 5 per cent., but for what reason my Lords have not been able to ascertain.

My Lords further find that the allowance made by the Board of Works to the architects unattached to their establishment has been at the rate of 3 per cent., and that the following works were executed by Mr. Burton at that rate:—

New Stable Court, Westminster;

New Stone House, Grenadier Guards, Westminster;

Inclosing Ground, North Side, New Mews, Westminster;

As an exception to that rule, Sir Jeffery Wyattville was paid 5 per cent. for the restoration of Windsor Castle, under a special agreement with the Treasury in 1826, by which he engaged not to charge for his journeys, which in those days were expensive, and some other extras usually charged by architects.

Looking, then, to the rule which had been established so long in the office over which Lord Bessborough presided, and to the close proximity which the sum fixed by his Lordship bears to the estimate then made for the mere shell of the building, and to the probable amount of the cost of such fittings as would be placed under the superintendence of the architect, my Lords can arrive at no other conclusion than that, in fixing that sum for the entire work, his Lordship did so with a view to the rate of commission usually paid by the Department, preferring to take a fixed sum rather than a commission, as is not unfrequently done, under the impression that it may avoid an extension of the works, and consequently of the cost.

My Lords advert to the great increase in the expenditure upon these works, and to the circumstances under which such increase has from time to time taken place, to such an extent that the outlay up to this time is nearly double the sum originally intended. They also advert to the circumstance, that with regard to some portion of that expense connected with the internal fittings, assistance and advice other than that afforded by you has been obtained, and it appears that in this way Mr. Pugin was employed for some time at a salary of 200l. a-year.

I have to apprise you that, under all the circumstances of the case, my Lords have arrived at the conclusion, that a fair and even liberal remuneration to you will be, that you should be paid at the rate of 3 per cent. upon the cost of the works which have been and may hereafter be performed under your supervision, including the fittings, &c., of the building, but subject to a deduction of the amounts which shall appear to have been paid for the assistance rendered by Mr. Pugin.

My Lords have therefore requested the Board of Works to furnish this Board without delay with an exact account of the expenditure up to the 31st December, 1853, and that an account shall also be furnished of the several amounts of money which from time to time have been paid to you on account of the said works; and whatever balance shall appear to be due to you upon such an account my Lords will be prepared at once to discharge.

My Lords have also desired that the Board of Works will, in the present and in every future year, include in their annual estimates for the New Houses of Parliament a sum equal to 3 per cent. on the probable outlay of the year, as a remuneration to the architect, and they have directed that at the close of every year the value of the work performed may be accurately ascertained, and the commission of the architect punctually discharged on the principles herein laid down.

In respect to the cost of measuring the work as it has proceeded, my Lords advert to the fact, that in the arrangements between the Board of Works and architects alluded to in the former part of this communication the understanding was, that that cost should be borne by the Board of Works. My Lords are, therefore, of opinion that you should be held free from any charge on that account. They have therefore requested that the Board of Works will report to this Board all the facts in connexion with the measurement of the works, and my Lords will be prepared to reimburse you any sum which you shall appear to have expended thereon.

I have to add that my Lords have been pleased further to request that the Board of Works will report fully to this Board as to the best mode in which the measurement of the work should in future be made as they proceed, having reference specially to that plan which will afford the most secure check upon public expenditure.

I am, &c. (Signed) James Wilson.

(c.) REPLY OF SIR C. BARRY, MARCH, 1854. From Sir C. Barry to the Treasury.

Clapham Common, 14 March, 1854.

Sir,—I regret that in consequence of a severe attack of illness more than two months since, from which I have not yet entirely recovered, I have been prevented from replying at an earlier period to your letter of the 8th ultimo, relative to my remuneration as the architect of the New Palace at Westminster.

The desire evinced by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury to be guided, in determining the amount of my remuneration, by the precedent established in respect of the payments hitherto made to architects for the public buildings of the country generally, is all that I can fairly expect at their Lordships’ hands, and is accordingly acknowledged with feelings of gratitude on my part. The fixed sum of 25,000l., originally proposed by the late Lord Bessborough as a recompense for my services as the architect of the New Palace at Westminster, which, be it observed, was no less than 10,000l. below what I was justly entitled to upon the amount of my estimate, was unfairly forced upon me, and I was compelled, under the existing circumstances, to acquiesce, but under a protest as to its insufficiency, the force of which has been greatly strengthened by the experience I have now had during a period of 17 years, in carrying into effect those portions of the New Palace which are now completed.

My acquiescence in the sum proposed by the late Lord Bessborough has, notwithstanding my protest and the manifest insufficiency of the amount, been deemed to be a bargain, the conditions of which were, that for a given sum of money the architect should carry into effect a given design in a given period, namely, six years, which conditions have been long set aside by circumstances over which I have had no control. By what process the late Lord Bessborough arrived at the conclusion that 25,000l. was a fit and proper remuneration for the architect of such a building as the New Palace at Westminster, I have no means of knowing; but certainly it could not have been, as the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury seem to imagine, from any precedent then existing in his department, when all architects, without distinction, received at the least 5 per cent. upon the cost of their respective works. The precedent to which their Lordships allude, of paying the architects, who were formerly attached for a time to that Board, at the rate of 3 per cent., had then been abolished nearly seven years. But assuming, for the sake of argument, that his Lordship could have been guided, which is not in the least degree likely, by the precedent which had formerly been acted upon in his department in respect of its attached architects, it should be borne in mind, that although they received only 3 per cent. upon works, they were relieved of one of the most important of their professional duties, namely, the labour and responsibility of making contracts, measuring and making up accounts, &c., which it is evident the Board of Works has always considered to be equal to a further allowance of 2 per cent.; for as regards all other architects (with the exception, under special circumstances, of Mr. Burton in respect of a portion only of the public works executed under his direction) who have been, both formerly and since, employed upon public works, and who have been called upon to perform that duty, they have invariably received the accustomed amount of remuneration of 5 per cent. upon the cost of the respective works.

The following is a list of the most important public buildings upon which the respective architects have received 5 per cent. since the year 1832:—

The British Museum;

The General Post Office;

The State Paper Office;

Whitehall Chapel;

Westminster Hall;

The National Gallery;

The New Front of Buckingham Palace;

The Museum of Economic Geology;

The New Money Order Office (St. Martin’s-le-Grand);

The Royal Pavilion at Brighton;

St. Katherine’s Hospital, Regent’s Park;

The Lodges and Gateways in the Parks;

Kensington Palace;

Temporary Houses of Parliament;

Chapel Royal, St. James’s;

The Courts of Law, &c. &c.

In some of these instances the architects were also relieved of the measuring, making up accounts, &c. It appears, therefore, that payment at the rate of 5 per cent. to the architects of all public buildings, has invariably been the rule of the Board of Works since the year 1832; and that prior to that date the same rule prevailed, except in respect of those buildings which were carried into effect under the direction of those architects who were for a time attached to the Board, who received 3 per cent., for the reasons already mentioned.

With reference to the additions and alterations made under the direction of Mr. Nash, at Buckingham Palace, and the subsequent alterations under Mr. Blore, at the same building; the remuneration received by those two gentlemen was, not only at the rate of 5 per cent. but they were also relieved from the labour, cost, and responsibility as to measuring, &c.

As to the works at Windsor Castle, Sir Jeffrey Wyattville was not only paid at the rate of 5 per cent., but he also had the same relief afforded to him as to measuring, &c.; which circumstance, and not the payment to him of 5 per cent. as supposed by their Lordships, was, as appears by a Treasury Minute of the 6th October, 1826, considered to be an equivalent for his journeys and some other extras usually charged by architects. Notwithstanding, however, this arrangement in lieu of a charge for journeys, Sir Jeffrey had also the advantage of having a residence assigned to him in the Castle free of charge, during the whole of the time he was employed upon the works of that building. In short, the payments made to the architects of the two above-mentioned works, together with the immunities and advantages which they enjoyed, constituted a remuneration fully equal to 7 per cent.

With respect to my own case, as regards the New Palace at Westminster, I have not only performed all the professional duties, which Sir Jeffrey Wyattville and Mr. Nash performed in respect of Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace, but I have in addition been called upon to take upon myself the labour and responsibility of making contracts, forming elaborate schedules of prices, measuring, and making up accounts amounting to nearly a million and a half of money, and of adjusting disputed claims to a considerable extent, from which onerous duties they were altogether exempt; and I have had at least as great, if not much greater, difficulties than they had to contend with in carrying into effect the works at the New Palace at Westminster, owing to the necessity of forming an artificial foundation in the river; the limited clearances from time to time of the site; the necessity of keeping up old buildings, often a work of much difficulty and danger, and constantly adding temporary accommodation, so that the sittings of Parliament might not be interrupted; the interferences with the works by Parliamentary Committees and other authorities, involving numerous alterations and delays; and the impossibility, in consequence of spending upon an average more than about 90,000l. per annum, by which the works have now been in hand more than 11 years beyond the time originally assumed for their completion.

With reference to the measuring and making up accounts, &c., I beg to state that the mere reimbursement of my expenses, as proposed by their Lordships, would be no remuneration whatever to me for the share which I have personally taken, and the responsibility which I have incurred in that important portion of my duty.

In my letter to the New Palace Commissioners of the 6th February, 1849, which has been laid before Parliament, and to which letter, as it touches generally upon the prominent points of my case, I beg most respectfully to direct the attention of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury, I enumerated the extra duties which have devolved upon me in consequence of my position as the architect of the New Palace, and which are not included in the ordinary remuneration of an architect. I have only to add to what I have therein stated, that the difficulties in acting with Dr. Reid were imposed upon me after the original design and construction had been matured and exemplified in all requisite drawings, &c., and the works had been actually commenced; and that the same difficulties have continued in a greater or less degree up to within about the last 18 months; and, as a further illustration of the extra labours to which I have adverted in that letter in respect of designing and re-designing each department of the New Palace successively, I may mention that with reference to that large portion of the building now in hand in Old Palace Yard, designs have been made and working drawings prepared no less than four times before the works were commenced, in consequence of the ever-varying directions of the chiefs of the department which is therein contained.

As regards Mr. Pugin, whose services are alluded to in your letter, their Lordships are altogether under an erroneous impression. The salary paid to that gentleman was not for any duties that usually devolve upon the architect in respect of designs, which designs have all emanated from myself, but for taking the charge and direction of the men employed by the Government in the wood-carving department, for which office he was pre-eminently qualified, not only on account of his knowledge of decorative art, but practically on account of the experience which he had previously acquired in following, at one period of his life, wood-carving as a business. A similar arrangement was made in respect of the stone-carving, which is also executed by workmen employed by the Government, by which a like appointment was conferred upon Mr. Thomas, who is still at the head of that department. Their Lordships will therefore perceive, that it would be manifestly unjust to make any reduction, as proposed, in my remuneration in respect of the salaries paid to the executive chiefs of either of these departments.

Their Lordships advert to the great increase of expenditure beyond the original estimate, and the circumstances under which such increase has from time to time taken place as, apparently, an element in the consideration of my claim; but I would most respectfully submit that the increase adverted to cannot fairly affect the amount of my remuneration, inasmuch as it has brought upon me more than a full and proportionate amount of extra labour, anxiety, and responsibility, and has been occasioned by circumstances beyond my control, as set forth in a Report of a Committee of the House of Commons in 1844, and subsequently by the New Palace Commissioners, in a letter addressed by them to the Treasury on the 15th June, 1849.

When, therefore, the difficulties which I have had to encounter for nearly 20 years, in conducting the great work at Westminster to its present state, are borne in mind, and it is considered that I have devoted, almost exclusively, the best part of my life to that work, and that in consequence of being its architect I have experienced the loss of nearly the whole of a lucrative private practice; that the invariable rule of the Board of Works has been to pay all architects at least 5 per cent., or in the same ratio, according to the duties which they have been required to discharge; and more especially when it is considered that the offer of remuneration now made to me for designing and carrying into effect the New Palace at Westminster, under all the circumstances and disadvantages already adverted to, does not, owing to the length of time during which the works have been in hand, exceed, after deducting my expenses, the sum of 1500l. per annum, I cannot doubt but that the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury will, upon a review of all the circumstances adverted to, admit that such an offer is very far short of meeting the justice of the case; and that with reference to its merits and to the precedents established, particularly in respect of the works of Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace, &c., I am most fairly and justly entitled to at least the accustomed remuneration of the profession of 5 per cent., including the measuring, &c., and an allowance for extra services, with such interest as may be due to me upon deferred payments, for designing and carrying into effect, under very peculiar and difficult circumstances, the largest, the most elaborate in its design and details, and the most important building in modern times.

I have, &c., (Signed) Charles Barry.

(d). LETTER OF J. M. WHITE, ESQ., JULY, 1855. From J. M. White, Esq., to James Wilson, Esq., M.P.

10, Whitehall Place, 14 July, 1855.

Sir Charles Barry’s Claims.

Sir,—Owing to Sir Charles’s absence in Paris, I have not been able to obtain his final reply on the subject of these claims till this morning. I explained the purport of my interview with you last Saturday, when you stated that your offer was limited to the written paper which you read to me, and of which you had previously furnished me with a copy. The terms of this paper are as follows:—

“Past Accounts.

“Commission on works to which commission is applicable, 3 per cent.

“Amount to 2nd October, 1854, 1,506,845l.

“Commission for measurement on the cost of works to which measurement applies, 1 per cent.

“These commissions to cover all questions of claims of any kind in respect to the Houses of Parliament.

“Future Expenditure.

“Commission on works performed, 3 per cent.

“Commission for measurement on all expenditure to which measurement is applicable, 1 per cent.

“Treasury, 26 May, 1855.

“Future.

“To prevent misunderstanding in future, Sir C. Barry is to order no furniture, &c., except under an authority through the Board of Works from the Treasury.”[123]

To these terms I objected that they did not cover a very large amount of services relating to the Houses of Parliament, but not leading to expenditure; and further, there was another claim for interest on outlay, and on deferred payments, and generally, assuming the rates of commission were of the amounts offered by you, I considered that they ought to be on the amount expended, past and future. To your remark, “that the claim for extra services could not be of large amount, and hence you considered it was covered by the commission offered,” and that the claim for interest you could not admit in any way, I replied first, that the services were very considerable, in corroboration of which I now beg to forward a rough statement of them. And I feel I am justified in adhering to this part of the claim, which I fully believe would extend to a sum of at least 10,000l. For you will have the goodness to bear in mind that these claims run over nearly twenty years, that they have been the subject of inquiry by no less than seven Committees of the House of Commons, besides two official references relating to Dr. Reid’s plans of ventilation (exclusive of that relating to his final claims, which has been duly met), and that in every case Sir C. Barry has acted with full sanction and authority.

I put forward this claim therefore with perfect confidence, because had it been an ordinary case between an independent architect and an ordinary employer, the claim could be supported fully on a quantum meruit; and why an independent architect like Sir C. Barry should not have at least the same payment from the Government I am wholly at a loss to understand.

The claim for interest, if worked out in detail, would amount at least to as much as the other class of claims. You will recollect that I pointed out, in reference to the 25,000l. alluded to in Lord Duncannon’s offer, Sir Charles, instead of being paid in six years as proposed, was not paid in twelve; and even in the measuring, to which your offer of 1 per cent. extends, he is actually in advance from 11,000l. to 12,000l., and his other outlay, especially in more remote years, has been in large advance from time to time, independently of the balance now due to him, and the sacrifice he is willing to make if a final settlement be now made. It is true that advances are almost incidental to cases of this kind, and that, if disputes arise, it is an inconvenience which must often be shared between the disputing parties; but such incidents are covered and the inconvenience met by adhering to the customary rules and amount of remuneration, which in works like these is 5 per cent., as claimed by Sir C. Barry. That amount being departed from, the present claim has a substance and a reality about it calling for full and fair consideration from the Government. And finally, on the main point of the commission, I must again advert to the following facts:—

1st. That the Board of Woods and Works in the first instance themselves added 5 per cent. as due to the architect. This had all the effect of a legal contract, if not disturbed by subsequent proceedings.

2nd. Lord Duncannon’s offer of 25,000l. was made on the original estimate, coupled with the condition of the work being completed in six years, and other terms, not one of which has been kept. The works have nearly reached three times their amount, and have extended over three times the stipulated period. The offer itself was also acceded to under protest, and in fact has never had a legal existence.

3rd. Hence Sir C. Barry has either a right to fall back on the original estimate, or on the custom. Both of these are 5 per cent., including the measuring and taking out quantities; and by way of illustration I have already referred to the British Museum, and to Dover Harbour; the latter being mere plummet and line work, and sinking square blocks of stone, whilst Sir Charles has in many cases to make, it may be, even one thousand working drawings for parts of the vast and elaborate work he has in hand.

But, as acting on his behalf with a view to a settlement, and not a perpetuation of these disputed claims, I now beg to offer as a counter proposition to your own—

1st. To accept 3 per cent. as architect’s commission on all certified works, taking the present amount as stated in your offer.

2nd. To accept 1 per cent. for quantities and measurement on the like amount.

3rd. The same commissions respectively on all future certified works.

4th. To refer the claims for extra works to some eminent person, who can hear such evidence as either the Government or Sir Charles may adduce in support of their respective views.

5th. The same referee to decide the question of interest; or

6th. A specific sum to be at once received as a closing of all claims for such services, and interest to the present day.

As to the referee, I would name by way of illustration Sir John Patteson, Sir Edward Ryan, or Mr. J. Lefevre, or any other of like standing.

These points I have severed in order as far as possible to meet the views already discussed in personal conference. But as a whole I can only say, in conclusion, as I have said before, that Sir C. Barry is willing to submit the whole question to a reference of this kind, and to abide the result. He is prepared to justify his claim to 5 per cent. by his original engagement and the custom; to vouch for all he has done by showing he has never acted without full authority; and if anything be needed to support his views, he finds it in the attack which has been made on him, and the way in which, up to the present discussion, what he believes to have been his just and reasonable claims have been resisted by the successive Governments with whom he has had to deal.

I will wait on you for your reply to this suggestion, and beg to subscribe myself,

Yours, &c., (Signed) John Meadows White.

(e). TREASURY MINUTE OF JANUARY 29TH, 1856.

My Lords advert to their minute of the 6th February, 1854, in reference to the claims of Sir Charles Barry, as architect of the new Houses of Parliament.

By that minute my Lords arrived at the opinion that a commission of 3 per cent. upon the cost of the building already incurred would be a fair and liberal remuneration to Sir Charles Barry, and that the same rate of commission should be allowed on the future expenditure.

My Lords, however, reserved for further consideration a claim which had been made for the payment for certain services performed by the late Mr. Pugin, upon which, as well as with regard to the question of measurement of works, past and future, my Lords called for a Report from the Board of Works. My Lords also requested to be informed of the exact cost of the buildings up to the latest date then ascertainable, and of the amount of moneys which from time to time had been paid to Sir Charles Barry.

From the Report of the Board of Works it appears that up to the 2nd of October, 1853, the cost of the building amounted to 1,506,845l. 10s., but with regard to which the Board of Works reports that works to the amount of 14,439l. were not strictly subject to commission. They also report, that up to that date Sir Charles Barry had received payments on account of commission, amounting in all to 44,735l. 3s. 9d.

With regard to measurements, it appears by the same Report that Sir Charles Barry had paid out of pocket the sum of 11,457l. 18s. 10d. for that work, and that he had employed, in a portion of that duty, officers of the Board of Works, but who had been paid extra for such services. From explanations made, my Lords arrived at the conclusion that the moneys paid to Mr. Pugin should be allowed as extras. The Report of the Board of Works referred to, dated the 22nd January, 1855, however, brought before this Board several new claims upon the part of Sir Charles Barry for extra remuneration over and above his commission, but which appeared to my Lords to be generally of a nature which were covered by the commission of 3 per cent. upon the outlay.

Mr. Wilson now states to the Board that, at the instance of Sir Charles Barry, Mr. Meadows White, as his friend, sought several interviews with him for the purpose of endeavouring to come to a settlement in respect to the numerous questions in dispute.

A list of Sir Charles Barry’s claims for extra payment was put in by Mr. White, and consisted of:—

1. Services for plans in connexion with some contemplated arrangements in the new building for the deposit of Public Records.

2. Services in assisting and advising the Fine Arts Commission in respect to arrangements to be made in the Houses of Parliament.

3. Services in respect to warming and ventilating the Houses of Parliament.

4. Returns to Parliament, and attendance on Parliamentary Committees.

5. Other services in respect to warming and ventilating.

6. For directions to workmen, &c., in the wood and stone carving departments.

7. For purchase of stock on behalf of Government.

8. For procuring casts from the best examples of mediæval carving, &c.

9. For extra designs after the original plans were made.

10. For miscellaneous services, resisting unfair claims of contractors, &c.

It appears to my Lords, that with the exception of any charge which Sir Charles Barry may be able to show he is entitled to for conducting the ventilation and lighting of the houses of Parliament, all the other charges were fairly to be included in the commission of the architect.

Looking, however, at the question as a whole, and desirous to put an end to these long disputed points, and after having consulted the Board of Works, the following offer was made to Mr. White, as acting for Sir C. Barry, on the 26th of May last, with a view finally to settle all questions as to commission, measurement, and all other claims, up to the 2nd of October, 1853, to which date the closed accounts extended.

1st. That a commission of 3 per cent. should be allowed on the entire outlay of 1,506,845l., up to the 2nd of October, 1853.

2nd. That a remuneration for measurement upon the whole of the works included in that outlay should be paid at the rate of 1 per cent.

3rd. That these commissions should cover all demands of every kind whatsoever for the past, the services for warming, lighting, and ventilating alone excepted, which should be dealt with separately, and upon their own merits.

4th. That the remuneration of Sir Charles Barry for the future should be fixed at

Three per cent. commission on the outlay as architect, and 1 per cent. for measurement upon all works to which measurement applies; and that no furniture, &c. should in future be furnished by Sir C. Barry except by the special order of the Treasury.

After numerous further interviews and discussions with Mr. White, that gentleman, on the part of Sir Charles Barry, declined the terms of settlement thus offered, and pressed again the claims for the extra services performed.

My Lords having again referred Sir C. Barry’s claims for a report to the Board of Works, and having very carefully reviewed the whole case, continue to be of opinion that the terms herein stated are not only fair but liberal; that they include all remuneration to which Sir C. Barry is justly entitled for the services he has performed, and that their Lordships could not extend the same consistently with their duty to the public.

Considering, moreover, that this matter has gone on for nearly twenty years without any distinct understanding being arrived at, notwithstanding the efforts of every successive Board of Treasury to do so, my Lords are of opinion that it is inconsistent with the public interests that it should be any longer delayed; and they therefore, as far as they are concerned, must record these terms as their final decision upon the questions at issue. They are pleased, consequently, to direct that no further payment be made on account until a final settlement of the past, and an agreement as to the future, are concluded.

Let a copy of this Minute be forwarded to Sir Charles Barry, and to the Board of Works.

(f). REPLY OF SIR C. BARRY OF FEBRUARY, 1856. From Sir Charles Barry to James Wilson, Esq., M.P.

Old Palace Yard, 9 February, 1856.

Sir,—I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 5th instant, enclosing copy of a Minute of the Lords Commissioners of her Majesty’s Treasury, dated the 29th ultimo, on the subject of my claims as the architect of the New Palace at Westminster.

As there are some passages in that Minute that appear to be founded upon a misapprehension of what has passed, I am anxious to call your attention to several of the explanations which I have already given in my letters and communications on the subject.

1st. With respect to the employment of the late Mr. Pugin, I have already stated, with reference to a claim made by their Lordships for a set-off on my commission for moneys paid to him, that he was not employed upon any duties that devolve upon me as the architect of the New Palace, inasmuch as all designs for that building have emanated from myself, but as the superintendent of the wood-carving department, in carrying my designs into effect, to which office he was appointed by the Government at a salary.

2ndly. With reference to the measurement of the work, I have already explained, that a portion of it was executed by my own clerks of works, and not, as stated in their Lordships’ Minute, by the officers of the Board of Works.

3rdly. That as the mention which is made of the furniture in the Minute may possibly lead to an inference that I have been in the habit of supplying furniture to the New Palace, I am anxious to repeat, that I have only been employed to make the designs for it, see to the proper execution of the contract, and check the accounts.

With reference to the remark in their Lordships’ Minute, as to the duration of the misunderstanding between myself and the Government in respect of my claims, I have to observe, that one of my greatest hardships has been the constant delays and postponements which have occurred in the consideration of my case; and that, during a period of more than 15 years, I have made every effort in my power to effect a settlement upon fair and honourable terms, and have constantly urged, without effect, the propriety of a reference by which I should have been perfectly willing to abide.

Lastly, I would beg to notice an omission in their Lordships’ Minute on the subject of Mr. White’s reply to their last proposal on the 12th December last, and to observe, that he did not then decline to accept the principle of it, but, on the contrary, accepted it, reserving only a question of a portion of the extra services to which that principle does not apply, and for which he proposed a fixed sum, or a reference to arbitration, to which proposal no official answer has yet been returned.

With respect to the decision recorded in their Lordships’ Minute, I regret extremely that I cannot consider it to be worthy of the character which their Lordships assign to it, as being either fair or liberal, for the following reasons:—

1st. Because it appears to be founded upon reports and statements upon which I have not been furnished with the means of making any reply or observations.

2ndly. Because the remuneration proposed is at variance with the long-established custom of my profession, and is far from adequate, when the elaboration of the work upon which I am engaged, and the extraordinary difficulties and disadvantages which have attended its progress, are duly considered.

3rdly. Because it is also at variance with all past and present practice, in respect of the rate of professional remuneration paid by the Government for all other architectural and engineering works of the country.

4thly. Because it deprives me, not only of all remuneration whatever for many extra services, forming no part of my duties as the architect of the New Palace at Westminster, but also of the repayment of a considerable sum of money which I have disbursed on account of them; and,

Lastly. Because the several questions at issue, both those which are strictly professional as well as those which are of a legal character, can only, in my opinion, be fairly solved upon evidence before an arbitrator of high standing, such as those whom I have ventured to propose for the purpose, by whose decision I should be perfectly wiling to abide.

I remain, &c., (Signed) Charles Barry.

(g). CONCLUSION OF TREASURY MINUTE OF JULY, 1856.

My Lords can arrive at no other conclusion on this part of the question than that Sir Charles Barry has failed altogether to establish his position, that the remuneration of 25,000l. awarded to him in 1838, amounted to 4 per cent. on the estimate then before the Board of Woods, &c.

My Lords now advert to the correspondence which passed in the following year on the subject.

It appears that when the Commissioners of Woods, &c. came to the conclusion communicated in their Report to the Treasury, of the 20th February, 1838, they had before them the detailed and verified estimates from which they had reason to believe that the building would be completed for the sum stated, subject to such considerable additions as must be made according to the report of their surveyors in respect to fittings and other works which had not been the subject of estimate. They, therefore, well knew the whole duty and labour which would devolve on the architect, and with this knowledge they stated their opinion that “the sum of 25,000l. would be a fair and liberal remuneration for the labour and responsibility to be imposed on Mr. Barry, in the superintendence, direction and completion of the intended edifice.” In the opinion of my Lords these terms are not susceptible of any other interpretation than that such remuneration was intended to cover every service which would devolve upon the architect in the completion of the building according to the estimates and specifications then before them, and the further contingent services; that it was proposed in lieu of the ordinary per-centage remuneration, and was intended to cover every charge, including that of measuring, which usually devolves on architects receiving such ordinary professional remuneration.

It is clear, also, that it was accepted by Sir Charles Barry on that understanding. When the Treasury Letter of the 25th February, 1839, was communicated to him, he requested to be informed of the principle on which the proposed sum had been recommended, in order that he might offer the Board of Woods, &c. a few observations on the subject. This application having been refused by the letter of the surveyor of the Board of 4th April, 1839, Sir Charles Barry addressed a letter to that officer on the 22nd April, 1839, in which he stated that he had no doubt that the proposed amount, although far short of the customary remuneration which had hitherto been paid to architects for extensive works, was considered by the Board to be liberal under all the circumstances of the case, and that with this impression he had no wish to do otherwise than bow to its decision. He expressed at the same time his opinion that the amount was very inadequate to the great labour and responsibility that would devolve upon him in the superintendence, direction, and completion of the intended edifice, and his trust that when that should be made manifest, there would not be any indisposition on the part of the Board to award to him the remainder of the remuneration which had hitherto been customary on similar occasions.

Three points are evident from this letter. First, that Sir Charles Barry accepted the proposed sum after a distinct refusal of explanation regarding the principle on which it was proposed. Secondly, that he was well aware at the time that it was far short of the customary remuneration to architects; and thirdly, that he also well understood that it was intended as the whole remuneration which he was to receive for the superintendence, direction, and completion of the intended edifice.

It is therefore too late for him now to raise questions regarding the principle on which the recommendation of the Board of Works in 1839 was based, and to found claims on the supposition that that Board had in view the payment to him of an amount equivalent to the customary remuneration of architects, when the only reservation contained in his letter of the 22nd April, 1839, was founded on the admitted fact that the proffered sum was considerably less than such an amount.

On reconsidering the whole circumstances, the only doubt which my Lords entertain is, whether they have not taken too liberal a view of the considerations by which the Board of Woods, &c. were influenced when they recommended the payment of the fixed sum of 25,000l.; and whether, especially in admitting Sir Charles Barry’s claim to the payment of the expense of measuring, they have not gone beyond the intentions of the arrangement of 1839.

My Lords have, however, no disposition now to re-open this question, and they are prepared to give effect to the arrangement proposed in their Minute of the 29th January last. With this view they proceed to consider the Report of the First Commissioner of Works, of the 11th April last, regarding the two points which were reserved in that Minute for future settlement, viz.:—

1st. The amount of remuneration for services rendered in the warming, lighting, and ventilating arrangements connected with the New Palace.

2nd. The works upon which he should hereafter be allowed the commission of 1 per cent. on measuring.

On these two points the First Commissioner has made the following suggestions:—

“As to the first point, I am of opinion that Sir C. Barry is entitled to receive, as a remuneration for his services under that head, a payment of 4,925l.; and I arrive at this amount by allowing him 300l. per annum from January 1840 to April 1847, in respect of the preparation of plans and estimates for the various schemes suggested by Dr. Reid, which were either abandoned or greatly modified previously to carrying into effect the existing arrangements, and 500l. per annum from April 1847 to November 1852, for a continuance of the same duties, and also for taking charge of the warming, ventilating, and lighting apparatus throughout the entire building, with the exception of the House of Commons.

“Upon the second point, I am of opinion that an allowance for measurement of 1 per cent. should, for the future, be made only upon such accounts as require the services of a surveyor for their preparation, unless the architect should be authorised in writing by the First Commissioner of this Board, and with the approval of your Lordships’ Board, to make any special charge for special services so authorised.”

My Lords concur in these recommendations, and desire that the First Commissioner of Works will govern himself thereby. They will be prepared, in compliance therewith, to direct the issue to Sir Charles Barry of 4,925l., in full satisfaction of his claim for services connected with the warming, lighting and ventilating arrangements, and on the understanding that the whole principle of remuneration for his services is now finally settled, as defined by the Minute of 29th January last, and the further directions now given, and that in order to prevent any misapprehension as to the future, Sir Charles Barry will enter into an undertaking with the Board of Works to complete the buildings for the rate of commission and remuneration for measurement therein provided for.

In bringing this matter to a conclusion, my Lords feel it right to observe, with reference to statements which Sir Charles Barry has advanced in contravention of the grounds of the decision of this Board, that when their Lordships agreed to a payment being made to him at the rate of 1 per cent. for measuring, they had before them a report from the Board of Works, from which it appeared that, if the measuring were conducted under the direction of that Board, the remuneration to professional measurers for the work would be made “by a commission varying from one-half to three-quarters per cent.” Their Lordships therefore consider that in allowing him 1 per cent. he will be afforded ample remuneration for any duties imposed upon him personally in connexion with the service of measuring. Their Lordships have also to observe that the principle proposed by the Board of Works, that the allowance for measuring should be made only on such accounts as require the services of a surveyor for their preparation, except under special circumstances, is not only right as respects works executed subsequently to the 2nd October, 1853, but would in strictness be applicable to past works. Their Lordships therefore feel that, in allowing him remuneration at the rate of 1 per cent. for measuring on the gross expenditure of 1,508,174l. on account of works certified by him up to the 2nd October, 1854, they will have conceded payments to him considerably exceeding the sum to which he would have been entitled for the mere duty of measuring, and that that sum will afford full remuneration for all the extra services referred to in the Minute of this Board of 29th January last, excepting only those connected with services for warming, lighting, and ventilating, for which a special payment is now directed.

Their Lordships have before them a certified statement prepared in the Office of Works, from which it appears that the proportion of the said expenditure of 1,508,174l., which represent works which would not require the services of a measurer, is 215,000l. Sir Charles Barry will receive under the arrangement sanctioned by this Board 1 per cent. on the latter sum, being 2,150l. above the amount to which he would be properly entitled for the actual service of measuring, and they consider that a payment of that amount will afford him ample remuneration for all the undefined extra services referred to.

Transmit copy of this Minute to Sir Charles Barry for his information.

Transmit also copy thereof to the First Commissioner of Works for his information and guidance.

Whitehall Treasury Chambers, July, 1856.

(h.) BRIEF REMARKS BY SIR C. BARRY, 1856.

Brief statement of the grounds of difference between the Architect of the New Palace at Westminster and the Lords of the Treasury.

1. Because their Lordships have assumed to themselves the right in their own case to put a value upon the architect’s services, at variance with professional custom, and contrary both to law and equity.

2. Because that, whilst the ordinary rate of professional commission is far from an adequate remuneration for more than 20 years’ devotion of the architect’s life to the carrying into effect, under peculiarly trying circumstances and great responsibilities, a work so extensive, intricate, and elaborate, as the New Palace at Westminster, their Lordships’ offer involves a sacrifice on his part of at least 20,000l. of his accustomed commission, exclusive of interest of money upon payments unduly withheld, amounting to not less than 15,000l.