-As 
 
 < ' 
 
 ^ ' ’ *i'.- 
 
 ^ ■ w*.' '■ v" 
 
 Vi- • ■•■ ' 6 H 
 
 ■ .:;.. 1 *'/' ■ 7 ' 4 •- 2 ^^' 
 
 -' ■ ' •-. " . ' ■ •■■< if-'.. 
 
 -■■ ■* •■ • - ' 
 Jf!v -rf. ■ - , ^ N * 
 
 ^ .i. . - .V irir 
 
 
 V* 
 
 
 '■■''ssr 
 
 w; .^' ■ ■ 
 
 %■' ^ 
 
 l|(iv ♦ ♦ 
 
 ^t- '■ 
 
 
 ^ 1, 
 
 -*' ' 
 
 . ♦> 
 
 - V 
 
 # 
 
 ;4 - 
 
 ,' 'n-- i- 
 
 
 .V 
 
 V 
 
 •if 
 
 .4. 
 
 ^?Ns. 
 
 
 # 
 
 * -fVr 
 
 
 -irU.. 
 

 
 
 
 t • 
 
 . > 
 
 ’.C'f \ 
 
 - <5 
 
 4 - 
 
Frontispiece. 
 
 D s: 
 
 X CJ 
 
 •n . O 
 
 ^ jy) 
 
 (S d ^ 
 
 ^ cli 
 
 Cu 
 
 <U 
 
 9i i= 
 
 ,?q t: 
 
 C/5 (/i 
 
 C 
 
 C u 
 
 U 
 
 U ^ 
 
 . ci oj 
 
 .h; (u -ii; 
 
 X 
 
 ^ — a,. 
 
 ^ .s' ^ 
 § o 
 
 THRONE, HOUSE OF LORDS. 
 
THE ARCHITECT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 NEW PALACE AT AVESTMINSTER. 
 
 A KEPI.Y TO A PAMPHLET 
 BY E. W. PUGIN, ESQ., 
 
 ENTITLED 
 
 “AVIIO WAS THE AKT-ARCIHTECT OF THE 
 HOUSES OF PARLIAMEN'n” 
 
 By ALFRED BARRY,_D.D., 
 
 PRINCIPAL OF CHELTENHAM COLLEGE. 
 
 LONDONA 
 
 JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET. 
 
 1868 . 
 
rmiwr : i'Eintf.u by w. ci-owks and sons, DtxKt: street, Stamford street, 
 
 AND CHARING CROSS. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Introductory ; — page 
 
 Rcason.s which might seem to make a notice of Mr. E. W. Pugin 
 needless or undesirable — 
 
 (a) The lapse of time I 
 
 (h) The refusal of an impartial tribunal - 
 
 (c) The object and spirit of his attack ‘A 
 
 Statement of Mr. p]. W. Pugin’s attack, and of the method of 
 reply .T 
 
 (A) The Competition Drawings : — 
 
 Examination of Mr. E. W. Pugin’s supix)sed evidences — , 
 
 ( I.) His appeal to Mr. TallDot Bury, and its result .. 0 
 
 (IT ) His reference to the ‘ Morning Post’ of 1835 .. .. 12 
 
 (HI.) The letters published by him from various persons .. 12 
 
 ( IV.) His references to Mr. A. \V. Pugin’s diary 15 
 
 Counter evidences — 
 
 ( I.) Statement of Mr. Wolfe and letter of Mr. Bakewell .. 20 
 
 ( II.) „ Mr. Talbot Bury 27 
 
 ( III.) „ Mr. A. W. Pugin himself, as given to 
 
 Mr. Ferrey, Mr. Richardson, the Editor of the 
 
 ‘ Builder,’ and the Rev. B. Webb 28 
 
 (B) Subsequent Work at the New Palace 
 
 Statement of Mr. E. W. Pugin ..' 31 
 
 Counter statements, previously made by Sir C. Barry’s repre- 
 sentatives 32 
 
 Examination of Mr. E. W. Pugin’s supposed evidences — 
 
 ( I.) Mr. A. W. Pugin’s diary 34 
 
 ( II.) Letters of Sir C. Barry to Mr. A. W. Pugin .. .. 34 
 
 Letters of Mr. Banks, Mr. E. M. Barry, and Mr. Press- 
 land thereon 37 
 
IV 
 
 COK TENTHS. 
 
 Counter evidences — i-agk 
 
 ( L) Mr. A. \V. Pugin’s written statements in public and 
 
 private letters 50 
 
 ( 11.) Statement of Mr. Wolfe and Mr. Charles Barry .. .. 59 
 
 (111.) Letters from Messrs. Banks, Gibson, Somers Clarke, 
 Brakspear, Kennedy, Wright, Groves; from Mr. Gris- 
 sell. Sir M. Peto, Mr. Field ; from Messrs. Quarm and 
 Bayne ; from Messrs. Philip, Clayton, Mabey, Garland 70 ■ 
 
 ( IV.) Statement of Mr. Talbot Bury 93 
 
 (V.) Report of examination of existing drawings 98 
 
 Summary of results 101 
 
 (C) Appendix on the statement of Mr. E. W. Pugin with regard 
 to certain letters of Sir C. Barry, now missing ; and correspond- 
 ence between him and Sir C. Barry’s executors thereon . . 106 
 
THE ARCHITECT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 NKVV PALACE AT WESTMINSTER. 
 
 There are two reasons, wliicli miglit seem to make it almost 
 needless to reply to 3tr. E. W. Pugin’s pamphlet, and its 
 attack on my father’s cliaracter as an artist and as a man. 
 
 The first is, the extraordinary lapse of time since the 
 events on wliich tin's attack is based, and the unaceountable 
 silence observed by j\Er. K. W. Pugin during my father’s 
 lifetime, and for more than seven years after his death. The 
 competition drawings, in respect of which he first advances 
 a. claim for his father, were made mo7'e than thirty-two years 
 ago ; j\Ir. A. W. Pugin himself has now been dead fifteen years, 
 and 8ir C. Barry more than seven years. During the whole 
 of this time no syllable has been heard of this extraordinary 
 claim. On one occasion, in 1845, when some question did 
 arise (from causes to be hereafter mentioned), it was set at 
 rest by the public and emphatic denial of Mr. A. AV. Pugin 
 himself. At another, in 1858, a paper was read before the 
 Institute of British Architects by my brother, Mr. E. 31. 
 Barry, elaborately describing the New Palace at AVest- 
 miuster, and containing an emphatic testimony (given with 
 Sir C. Barry’s full knowledge and concurrence) to the valuable 
 aid received from Air. A. W. Pugin, as an assistant in the 
 work. This paper was read in the presence of many friends 
 of the late Air. Pugin, it was printed in the ‘ Transactions ’ of 
 the Institute, and must have been known to Air. E. AV. Pugin 
 himself as a member of that body ; but no word was uttered 
 
 B 
 
THE ARCHITECT OF THE 
 
 to question the originality of Sir C. Barry’s designs, or deny 
 the subordinate position publicly assigned to Mr. A. W. 
 Pngin. After my hither’s death in 1862, notices appeared in 
 all the newspapers, commenting upon his works, and especi- 
 ally on the Xew Palace at Westminster ; and an eloquent 
 and interesting ‘Memoir’ was read by Mr. Bigby Wyatt 
 before the Institute, referring to these works in greater detail. 
 No question of authorship or originality was raised by any 
 one; wliether for praise or for blame, the New Palace was 
 acknowledged by all as Sir C. Barry’s work. Now, suddenly, 
 seven years after my father’s death, this claim is put forward 
 at a time when it is convenient for ]Mr. E. W. Pugin to attack 
 the designs for the New Law Courts, in the competition for 
 which he had not been included. In close connexion with it 
 there is also an attempt on his part to obtain a locus standi 
 for a design of his own for the remodelling of the House of 
 Commons, embodied in a letter to the ‘ Times ’ of September 
 18th, 1867, and reprinted in his pamphlet, though not Raving 
 the slightest bearing on the controversy. These facts alone 
 would, in the minds of most practical and thinking men, dis- 
 pense Sir C. Barry’s representatives from the necessity of any 
 detailed reply. 
 
 The second reason is found in the fact, that, almost from 
 the first origination of the claim, we have offered to meet Mr. 
 E. W. Pugin’s assertions and evidence, if he will bring them 
 before a competent and impartial tribunal. Every one must 
 be aware that newspaper controversy, or an interchange of 
 pam[)hlets, may elicit truth well enough in an abstract dis- 
 cussion of principles, or in a contest which depends upon 
 established and well -sifted evidence. But when, as in this 
 case, documents are referred to which need to be vei'ified 
 and attested, when witnesses are produced, the value of whose 
 witness is unknown until their means of knowledge have been 
 ascertained, it is absurd to think that any satisfactory result 
 can be obtained, exce[)t before some tribunal which shall be 
 capable of sifting and examining the evidence on both sides. 
 Now (not to mention a suggestion of ]\Ir. Wolfe’s in the 
 
NEW I'ALACE AT WESTMINSTEIE 
 
 3 
 
 ‘Pall IMall Gazdte’of August 27tli, 3 807) this course has 
 heou urged on Mr. E, Pugin in the columns of the ‘ Times,’ 
 first by my brother, ]\Ir. E. ]\r. Barry, on September 9th, next 
 by my brother 3Ir. Cliarles Barry, on Septembej' 10th, and 
 lastly, by myself on September 22nd, 1807. It is obvious 
 that the initiative in it must lie with Mr. E. Pugin himself. 
 W^e stand upon rights, long established and allowed on all 
 hands ; we are ready to defend them, but only when we know 
 what the accusation is. It is idle, therefore, to assert, as 
 IMr. E. W. Pugin does on the cover of his pamphlet, that he 
 has made the offer of doing so, and that offer has been 
 neglected. It was for liim to commence operations ; for the 
 condition made in a letter of his to the ‘ Times ’ of Sept. 
 25th, 1807, that “ both parties should deposit tlieir state- 
 “ ments simultaneously” is, on the face of it, simply absurd. 
 We, on our ])art, have been ready, and are ready still, to 
 meet any charge which he will bring before the Council of the 
 Institute of British Architects. But from this course he 
 shrinks ; and the fact that lie does so shrink will again, in 
 the eyes of all impartial judges, settle practically the merits 
 of the case. 
 
 Besides these reasons, which might seem to render con- 
 troversy needless, there is another which makes us reluctant 
 to enter into it. We cannot forget that Mr. E. W. Pugin’s 
 pamphlet is only the conclusion of a number of letters j 
 addressed by him to various newspapers, and, in fact, con- 
 tains very little which has not been expressed in them. His 
 })lan has not been to carry on the war in one newspaper only,^' 
 or, until now, in one pamphlet embodying his whole case, 
 still less to approach any official tribunal. Had he done so, 
 the matter would long ago have been set at rest. But his 
 warfare has been carried on in one paper after another; 
 sometimes in several papers simultaneously. The ‘ Pall 
 Mall Gazette,’ after allowing him to state his whole case, 
 
 * Even now I observe that a seeond issue of his pamphlet has taken place, 
 containing a ninnher of newspaper letters, &c., which might just as well have 
 been printed at first, if they were worth printing at all. 
 
 B 2 
 
4 
 
 THE ARCHITECT OF THE 
 
 sums up against him. He suddenly breaks ground in a letter 
 of two columns and a half in the ‘ Times.’ That paper, in 
 a leading article of the same day, without even waiting for 
 any answer on our part, sums up practically in the same 
 direction ; and, after admitting letters on both sides, finally 
 closes its columns with a letter of mine challenging a re- 
 ference, and a quasi-acceptance of that challenge by Mr. E. 
 W. Pugin. But our assailant then emerges to light, or rather 
 (I believe) reappears, in the columns of the ‘ Building News ; ’ 
 and in the course of the proceedings has, I understand, 
 shown himself in the ‘ Tablet,’ the ‘ Westminster Gazette,’ 
 the ‘ Sun,’ the ‘ Globe,’ the ‘ Standard,’ and, possibly, in other 
 papers also, evidently hoping that Sir C. Barry’s repre- 
 sentatives would, through ignorance or weariness, fail to 
 notice some of his statements, and that he might be able to 
 refer to them as unquestioned. Now this course is clearly 
 the one best calculated to excite odium against Sir C. Barry 
 and to gain notoriety, but it is as clearly the worst of all 
 methods for eliciting truth. It is natural to shrink from a con- 
 troversy conducted by such a method and on such principles. 
 
 Accordingly, in preparing for the press the ‘ Memoir of 
 Sir C. Barry,’ published before Mr. E. W. Pugin’s pamphlet 
 appeared, I thought it unnecessary to take in it any notice 
 of his previous assertions. I believe that the account there 
 given contains the essential truth, which will remain esta- 
 blished when these extraordinary charges are disposed of. 
 
 But it is evidently necessary that the pamphlet should 
 not be entirely passed by, lest it should be thought to be 
 “ unanswered, because unanswerable.” The question is not 
 by any means one affecting my father alone. Every architect, 
 in conducting works on a great scale, must necessarily avail 
 himself of assistance in detail. It is one secret of the fresh- 
 ness and vigour of mediaeval work, that this practice was 
 extensively and liberally adopted, and at the present time, 
 it must ?‘.ecessarily exist, and increase with the growth of 
 knowledge and spirit in Gothic architecture. To make 
 the employment of an able and distinguished subordinate 
 
NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTER. 
 
 5 
 
 a ground for detracting from the originality of his principal, 
 is to do an injury to the profession generally, and to check 
 the progress of art. 
 
 It has therefore devolved upon me to refer to Mr. E. W. 
 Pugin’s assertions in these pages. I shall, however, con- 
 fine myself to the leading lines of the case, and decline 
 to follow liim into the irrelevant matters, which he has 
 introduced. The real question is of fact, and of distinct 
 evidence testifying to that fact. To this, and to this only, 
 shall I address myself. In doing so I must speak plainly as 
 to his evidences and his use of them, and must bring out 
 some unwelcome truths. But I shall not allow my natural 
 indignation at a charge, which to those who knew my father 
 must appear almost ludicrous, to prevent my speaking of 
 Mr. E. I^ugin more temperately than he has spoken of those 
 who venture to oi>pose him, or to interfere with the respect, 
 in which I have always held his father’s memory. 
 
 IMr. 111. W. Pugin’s attack consists of a sweeping assertion 
 that, both in the original and the subsequent designs for the 
 New Palace at Westminster, the late 3[r. A. W. Pugin was 
 the “ Art- Architect ”* of the New Palace at AVestminster, my 
 father only inventing the plan, and retaining the power of 
 accepting or refusing the designs made for him. It will be 
 observed that it amounts practically to the imputation of a 
 systematic fraud on the public, primarily to Sir C. Barry, 
 but (I must add) secondarily to the late Mr. Pugin himself, 
 whose moral character is herein sacrificed by his own son, 
 in order to raise an artistic reputation, which hardly needs 
 any increase. 
 
 Ihitting aside all irrelevant matter, this assertion divides 
 itself into two main parts, the first relating to the compe- 
 tition drawings of 1835, and the second to the assistance 
 subsequently rendered to Sir C. Barry after his appointment 
 
 * I leave it to architects and architectural critics to determine how far such 
 a tlivision of the architect’s work is possible — how far its two elements, which 
 arc certainly capable of being distinguished, can be actually separated without 
 tlie certainty of conllict and eventual failure. 
 
6 
 
 THE ARCHITECT OF THE 
 
 as Architect of the New Palace at Westminster in carrying 
 put his designs. 
 
 On each of these I propose, first to give Mr. E. W. Pugin’s 
 statement, next to examine the evidence on which he bases 
 it, and thirdly to adduce positive evidence distinctly contra- 
 dicting it and estcMishing the true facts of the case. t 
 
 A few subsidiary matters may be with advantage treated j 
 
 in an appendix. J 
 
 (A) The Competition Designs for the New Palace at 
 Westminster. 
 
 The statement of Mr. E. W, Pugin on this subject was 
 originally made in the ‘ Pall Mall Gazette ’ of August loth 
 and August 27th, 1867, repeated in the ‘ Times ’ on Sep- 
 tember 7th, 1867, and finally reiterated in his recent 
 pamphlet. The original statement ran as follows : — 
 
 In 1835 my father made for Sir C. Barry the designs, 
 “ whicli obtained the competition ” (sic). “ He had previ- 
 “ ously been engaged in preparing designs for the same com- 
 “ petition for Mr. Gillespie Graham, for which he received 
 300 guineas, and he did not accede to Sir C. Barry’s appli- 
 ‘‘ cation till he had obtained Mr. Gillespie Graham’s consent. 
 In order that my father’s touch might not be detected in 
 two separate sets of drawings, many of the designs were 
 “ re-drawn in pencil by Sir Charles, as Mr. Talbot Bury can 
 “ testify. For these designs, which included the whole of the 
 ‘‘ elevations and sections, together with some of the views, 
 my father received 400 guineas.” 
 
 In his pamphlet he says, ‘‘ I maintain that he actually 
 “ originated and designed the whole of the elevations of the 
 ‘‘ Palace — that he made the sections and working drawings 
 ‘‘ for every portion of the building, and that generally every 
 ‘‘ detail, both externally and internally, was his work.” 
 
 (I.) It will be observed that in his original letter he relies 
 on the testimony of Mr. Talbot Bury, an old and intimate 
 
NEW PALACE AT WESTMiNSTEIJ. 
 
 7 
 
 IVieiid of Ill's father, and a gentleman of establislied reputa- 
 tion. Jt is almost incredible tliat lie should have ventured 
 to do so, knowing what evidence I\fr. Bury was [irepared to 
 giv^e, and actually did give, in the following letters, addressed 
 to the ‘l^all Mall Gazette ’ and the ‘ Times.’ 
 
 “To TiiK Eiiitor of tiik ‘Pall Mall Gazettk.’ 
 
 “ 8in, — Having liccri out of London for some time, 1 have only 
 now seen a letter of Mr. E. Welby Pugin’s, which appeared in 
 your ])a[)cr of the ir)th inst., in wliich my name is brought 
 forward as unexpectedly as, I think, unfairh". 
 
 “Mr. E. Welby Pugin says: — ‘In order that my fither’s 
 ‘ touch should not be detected in two separate sets of drawings, 
 ‘ many of the designs were re-drawn in pencil by Sir Charles, as 
 ‘ Air. Talbot Bury can testify.’ If that has reference to Sir 
 Charles’s original design for the Houses of Parliament, I must 
 give it a mf)st positive denial. At that time I was in constant 
 and intimate communication with Mr. Pugin ; I had been 
 assisting him in the preparation of Air. f»illes[)ie Graham’s 
 drawings, which were comjileted before Air. Pugin touched any 
 drawings for Air. Parry. Air. Pugin was staying at my house 
 wlicn he first wcut to see Air. ikirry on the subject of the Houses 
 of Parliament drawings, and on his return he told me that he 
 had seen ‘ a very remarkable design, the plan being most 
 ‘ ingenious and com]U’ehensive, and the elevations treated in a 
 ‘very original and effective manner;’ he added ‘that Air. Barry 
 ‘had sought to give an Italian outline to Gothic details, and, 
 ‘though he should i)robably not have treated the composition 
 ‘ in that manner, the general effect would make a noble work, 
 ‘and he anticipated a decision in Air. Barry’s favour.’ 
 
 “ It was not until Sir ('harlcs Bariy had completed his 
 design in pencil, including elevations and sections, that Air. 
 Pugin had anything to do with his work. Sir C harlcs had been 
 engaged on his design, while Air. Pugin was working on Air. 
 Graham’s drawings, and the assistance he subsequently rendered 
 was undoul)tcdly confined to details extending very much over 
 the whole building. The drawings enumerated in Air. Pugin’s 
 diary were details, prepared for the purpose of obtaining tenders, 
 not made till after Sir Charles’s original design had been 
 selected. 
 
 • “ I can most positively deny the statement that the letter 
 
8 
 
 THE ARCHITECT OF THE 
 
 wliicb. Mr. E. W. Pugin says was written at the ‘ solicitation of 
 ‘ Sir Charles Barry,’ was written . under any kind of pressure. 
 Mr. Pugin was constantly at my liouse when he was in London, 
 and he told me distinctly that ‘ the public letter he wrote to 
 ‘ the “ Builder ” was simply an act of justice on his part, to 
 , remove an unfair and false statement which gave him credit for 
 ‘ a design made by another.’ 
 
 “ When Mr. Pugin at a later period was appointed to take 
 charge of the wood-carving works, I frequently called upon him 
 at Millbank, and ho has on those occasions shown me large 
 detail drawings prepared by Sir Charles Barry himself, which 
 he was engaged to see properly executed. I remember very 
 distinctly seeing the drawings for the Throne, and fittings for . 
 the House of Lords, and those for the Speaker and the House of 
 Commons. With respect to the stateulent that Mr. Pugin was 
 unwilling to enter into the competition on the ground of his 
 being a Koman Catholic, I know it to be most incorrect, as 
 ?\[r. Pugin himself told me that ‘ he thought it much wiser to 
 ‘ make sure of the amounts offered to him by Mr. Graham and 
 ‘ Sir Charles Barry, rather than risk the loss of his own time 
 ‘ and money in so large and uncertain a competition.’ 
 
 “ Nothing but a sense of what is due to the memory of two 
 great men could have induced me to enter into a correspondence 
 on this subject. I believe it is as unfair to Mr. Pugin’s memory 
 to lay claim to merit, which he himself in a voluntary and 
 honourable spirit had repudiated, as it is to Sir Charles Barry’s 
 memory to seek to disparage the power and ability which he most 
 undoubtedly and undividedly brought to bear on this great work. 
 
 “ I am. Sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 “ Talbot Bury. 
 
 “ 50, Welheck-street, Cavendish-square, August 19, 1867.” 
 
 “ To THE Editor of the ‘ Tibies.’ 
 
 ^‘SiR, — In Mr. E. Pugin’s assertions respecting the Houses of 
 Parliament, published in the ‘Times’ of the 7th inst., he has 
 thought fit to introduce my name ; and as, in justice to myself 
 as well as to other parties, an explanation is required, I trust 
 you will allow me the advantage of a little of your valuable 
 space for that purpose, more particularly after the lengthy 
 statement he has been permitted to make in your columns. 
 
 “ Mr. E. Pugin observes that ‘ my statements have been simply 
 
NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTER. 
 
 9 
 
 ‘ mot witli countor-Ktatements, for to say that the contradictory 
 ‘ and partial assertions of ^lessrs. Talfx^t Eury, Wolfe, Ac., in any 
 ‘ way prove themselves or each other, is mere folly.’ lie also 
 states : — ‘ 'iTie evidence they give of Sir Charles Barry’s com- 
 ‘ petition drawings being in pencil is correct. My father’s 
 ‘ competition drawings were also in pencil ; and this gives great 
 ‘probability to Mr. Talbot Bury’s revelation made to me on the 
 ‘ nth of August last, that “ many of m}^ father’s designs were 
 ‘“re drawn by Barry, so that the same touch should not be de- 
 ‘ “ tected in his and in Mr. Gillespie Graham’s designs.” ’ Now, 
 this statement of a ‘revelation,’ on which some stress might be 
 laid by those uninformed of facts, is positively and altogether 
 untrue, as on the evening to which he refers, when he was in 
 my house for a half-hour, I clearly stated that ‘ my old friend, 
 ‘ his father, had never worked on i\Ir. Barry’s competition 
 ‘ drawings,* but ho assisted him in the details of the internal 
 ‘linishings of the rooms;’ so this is a wilful misstatement to 
 which my name has been added. The assertion that the com- 
 })etition drawings of ^Ir. G. Graham and Sir Charles Barry were 
 ‘ finished in pencil ’ evinces his utter ignorance of facts (certainly 
 jAIr. E. B. was not one year old when this took place) ; and is 
 likewise untrue, and without any foundation, as 1 worked with 
 A. W. I’ugin on the designs for Mr. G. Graham, having made 
 the plans and sectiors, and I affirm that they were made in 
 Indian ink. I saw Sir Charles Barry’s drawings at the same 
 time, and they were finished in light Indian ink, in a style 
 peculiar to himself. I must hero ol)serve that no one saw the 
 set of designs wo were engaged on for Mr. G. Graham, but our- 
 selves ; so that ]\Ir. E. Pugin cannot plead that he has been mis- 
 informed on the subject. 
 
 “ \\ hat Sir C'harles Barry’s designs for Trentham (a mansion 
 erected for the late Duke of Sutherland) had to do with the 
 Houses of Parliament is a question too difficult for me to make 
 out ; I cannot see any similarity between them as regards their 
 purposes, and most assuredly there is none in their respective 
 styles of art. Among other statements made by Mr. E. Pugin 
 is, that his father had an ‘ idea of competing for the Houses of 
 
 * I see that IMr. E. Pugin comments on these words, wliich, separated from 
 what I have said elsewhere, might be misunderstood. I meant, of course, on 
 the competition designs as such; as, in fact, I said in my previous letter — “It 
 “ vas not until Sir 0. Barry had completed, his design in pencil, including 
 “ elevations and sections, that Mr. Pugin had anything to do with his work,” 
 
10 
 
 THE ARCHITECT OF THE 
 
 ‘ raiTiament that is without foundation, as he stated to me ‘ he 
 ‘ thought it much wiser to make sure of the amounts offered to 
 ‘ him by Mr. Gr. Graham and Sir Charles Barry, rather than risk 
 ‘ the loss of his own time and money in so large and uncertain a 
 ‘ competition.’ 
 
 “ Mr. E. Pugin asserts, likewise, that his father made a set of 
 designs and drawings for the Houses of Parliament before those 
 made for Mr. G. Graham were commenced, and that ‘ these com- 
 ‘ petition drawings were lost sight of from the day they were 
 ‘ mounted,’ and ‘ they were the designs for which Sir Charles 
 ‘ Barry paid 400 guineas,’ and ‘ were subsequently engrafted on 
 ‘ Sir Charles Barry’s ground plan.’ This statement, from first to 
 last, is an invention, and untrue, as A. W. Pugin did not make 
 any plan or design for this building until I went to his house at 
 Salisbury to assist him in Mr. G. Graham’s set of drawings. He 
 then put his first ideas on paper respecting it, and I worked them 
 out. He had no notion of the design Sir Charles Barry had in 
 hand. In the design on which we were engaged A. W. Pugin 
 confined his plan of the building to the limits of the existing 
 ground, whereas Sir Charles Barry’s encroached a long way into 
 the river, thereby gaining a great additional space and area. 
 This great and essential difference in the designs is conclusive 
 evidence of their being the work of two minds. A. W. Pugin 
 was staying at my house (after Mr. G. Graham’s drawings were 
 completed) when he first went to see Mr. Barry’s plans and 
 designs for the Houses of Parliament, and on his return he spoke 
 to me of them, and communicated to me, in very laudatory terms, 
 the mode Mr. Barry had adopted to gain the necessary space for 
 the buildings, which he stated he had overlooked ; he likewise 
 gave me a description of the elevations and general peculiarities 
 of the design. This confutes Hie preposterous assertions made 
 by Mr. E. Pugin as to the originator of the executed designs, 
 and put to silence the false statement that there was another 
 design for the Houses of Parliament which has ‘ been lost sight 
 of,’ &c., and was used by Sir Charles Barry. 
 
 “ Mr. E. Pugin states : ‘ Another entry shows that my 
 
 ‘ father was engaged on “ sections ; ” will my opponents infoini 
 ‘ me whether “ compositions, compartments, and sections ” mean 
 ‘ only details ? and will Mr. Talbot Bury, who is so in earnest 
 ‘ in describing these and other drawings merely as “drawings 
 ‘ “ for tenders,” reconcile this absurd depreciation with the fact 
 ‘ that “ drawings for tenders ” means working drawings, &c. ? ’ 
 
NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTER. 
 
 11 
 
 “ In reply to tlicso observations, wliich the public generally 
 cannot understand, and care nothing about, I have only to state 
 that as A. AV. I’ugin was my most intimate friend, we were 
 frequently at each other’s houses, and that 1 knew all the Avork 
 lie did for the Houses of Parliament from first to last, and I can 
 affirm that he never laid any claim to the design for that build- 
 ing ; his public repudiation of it, Avritten under no pressure (the 
 fair copy of which Avas Avritten at my house), he said, was 
 nothing but ‘ an act of justice to Sir Charles Barry,’ and I am 
 now only defending the eharacter of my friend in Aundicating 
 him from a charge of falsehood, Avhich AA^ould be the case if his 
 j)ublic statement was at variance Avith that made to his friends 
 generally. In that document he states clearly ‘ that 1 am en- 
 ‘ gaged hy him (Mr. Barry), and him alone, to assist in pre- 
 ‘ paring working drawings and models from his designs of all 
 ‘ the Avood-carAungs and other details of the internal decora- 
 ‘ tions,’ and ‘in fulfilling the duties of my office I do not do 
 ‘ anything AvhatcA^er on my OAvn responsibility,’ and, ‘ in fine, 
 ‘ my occupation is simply to assist in carrying out practically 
 ‘ iMr. Barry’s oAvn designs and aucavs in all respects.’ These 
 (quotations from Mr. A. W. Pugin’s letter to the editor of the 
 ‘ Builder,’ Seqdember 3, 1845, confirm qiositiA’ely my assertions, 
 and 1 am surq)rised Mr. E. Pugin can, in the face of his father’s 
 puldishcd assertions, make statements A\diich, if correct, must 
 disgrace his father’s memory. Mr. A. W . Pugin had fairly 
 earned enough laurels of his OAvn, and his mind AA^as of too high 
 an order to Avear honours to AAdiich he had no claim. 
 
 “ Two men, great in architecture and in art, haA"C qiassed 
 aAvay, avIio in life enjoyed each other’s friendshiqi. Peace be to 
 tlieir memories ! and Avhatever may be the merits of the Houses 
 of Parliament, the great AA^ork A\diich Sir Charles Barry has 
 alone designed, he had the Avisdom to apqu’cciate the talents and 
 to enlist for certain qmrts of it the serAuces of Mr. A. AV. Pugin, 
 Avho was haqiq)y in Avorking Avith one who was so intimately his 
 friend, and to Avhose opinion on matters of art he paid such 
 deference, and for Avhom lie had the greatest resj)ect. 
 
 “ Your obedient servant. 
 
 “Talbot Bukal 
 
 “ 50, Welhech-street, Cavendish-square^ Sept. 14, 1867. 
 
 “ i^S. — Absence Irom town has qDreA’^eiited my sending an earlier 
 reply to Mr. E. Pugin’s letter.” 
 
12 
 
 THE ARCHITECT OF THE 
 
 These letters are so important, that I give them in extenso, 
 although they anticipate matters to which I shall refer after- 
 wards. It must be, moreover, observed (for no reader of 
 our opponent’s pamphlet would infer it) that Mr. Talbot 
 Bury was actually Mr. E. W. Pugin^s own witness, an intimate 
 friend and cordial admirer of his father, who would not will- 
 ingly have said a word to compromise, even in the slightest 
 degree, the name of Pugin. It would be difficult for any 
 witness to contradict more completely the statement, which 
 he was called upon to prove, and Mr. E. Pugin accordingly 
 has no resource except to depreciate and to abuse him. 
 
 (II.) In his letter to the ‘ Times,’ another scrap of so-called 
 evidence is produced from a notice in the ‘ Morning Post ’ at 
 the time of the competition : The drawings of Mr. Gillespie 
 
 Graham by the same hand, which appears to have assisted 
 ‘^No. 64,” (Mr. Barry’s) “are masterly and entirely peculiar.” 
 This shows (what has never been for a moment questioned) 
 that Mr. A. W. Pugin (as is stated on p. 196 of the published 
 ‘Life of Sir C. Barry’) assisted him in detail drawings and 
 perspective views under the pressure of time in the com- 
 petition. It is curious that Mr. E. Pugin does not see how it 
 contradicts the daring assertion that Sir Charles fraudulently 
 copied his coadjutor’s drawings, in order to make them appear 
 to be his own. 
 
 (III.) In the pamphlet he collects on pp. 9-14 a number of 
 letters, apparently chosen with an idea of making quantity a 
 substitute for quality (three being anonymous, and some others 
 given only in part), in no one of which does the writer sjpeah 
 from any actual hnowledge of his own. Some are from mere 
 hearsay of what was “ generally believed,” others from vague 
 occasional sayings of Mr. A. W. Pugin himself. They are 
 letters which make a fair show in a pamphlet, but which no 
 official tribunal would receive for a moment. 
 
 A short reference to these will suffice. The first letter con- 
 tains no evidence at all. It is practically anonymous (signed 
 “ J. A. II.”), and merely contains a criticism on my father’s 
 Islington churches, and the cheap church built in Hatton Gar- 
 
NEW PALACE AT WESTMINRTEIL 
 
 i:; 
 
 den ill 1832, with an inference that he conld not liavo designed 
 the New Palace. In much of the criticism I believe that my 
 father would have joined. But the inference could only have 
 been made by one ignorant of the extraordinary capacity of 
 growth ill my fatlier’s mind, to which I have referred in 
 writing his ‘Memoir.’ And according to all laws of evidence 
 it is absolutely destroyed by any one piece of direct testi- 
 mony, such as is given abundantly below. It would not bo 
 difficult to retaliate by estimating Mr. A. W. Pugin’s powers 
 of conceiving the design of a great building as a whole. 
 
 The other letters profess to contain evidence, and I proceed 
 to examine its value. 
 
 An “ Ex M.P.” expressly says “ I cannot offer you any 
 “ direct evidence in justification of this impression, but my 
 “ recollection is that it was generally accepted.” 
 
 Mr. Grieve’s letter (A) contains a reference, somewhat 
 vague, to a confidential statement of Mr. Pugin. On this, 
 see Mr. Pugin’s public and private denials. 
 
 Mr. Shaw’s statement (B) merely shews that between 1844 
 and 1852 Mr. Pugin was at work for my father, and does not 
 refer to the competition drawings at all. 
 
 Letter C is anonymous, and therefore deserves no notice. 
 
 In D Mr. Baldwin Wood has “ always understood ” that 
 Mr. A. W. Pugin “ had a leading part in tlie design,” &c. 
 (Tliis letter is not quoted in extenso.) 
 
 In E Mr. Chapman informs us that a similar statement was 
 “ in the mouth of every one connected with ” a building of Mr. 
 Pugin’s at Nottingham. One statement in this letter is directly 
 contradicted by Mr. Earp’s letter in the foot-note below. 
 
 In F Mr. Hogarth speaks of mounting Mr. Barry’s drawings 
 under Mr. Pugin’s direction, and of a declaration of 3Ir. 
 Pugin’s that he had intended to compete. 
 
 On letter G I simply refer to a letter given in the note from 
 3fr. Earp.* 
 
 * This letter was addressed by Mr. Earp (unsolicited) to my brother, IMr. 
 Cliarles Barry. Jawutrij 1, 1868. 
 
 Sir, — Having seen in Mr. Pugin’s pamphlet an extract from a letter written 
 by me, in answer to an inquirj' from him — it being the concluding portion of a 
 
14 
 
 THE ARCHITECT OF THE 
 
 In letter H j^Irs. Thornton speaks of “remembrances of 
 “ conversations in old times between ” Mr. Pugin “ and her 
 “husband,” and correctly surmises that such remembrances 
 “would not be of use.” 
 
 In letter I ]Hr. Osmond simply declares, with perfect ac- 
 curacy, that 8ir Charles Barry spent an evening at Salisbury 
 in 1835, and that he believes that he recognised some 
 drawings of Mr. Pugin’s in my father’s competition designs. 
 
 In letter J ]\Ir. Yoysey merely states, on the authority 
 of his brother, that Mr. Pugin’s authorship was considered 
 “ as an acknowledged fact.” 
 
 Of all these letters there is only one of any consequence, 
 and even this derives its importance, not from its intrinsic 
 value, but from the name, “ J. K. Herbert,” subscribed to it. 
 When, however, its statements are analysed, they amount 
 simply to this — that some drawings for the work were made 
 in Mr. Herbert’s presence, which is entirely consistent with 
 the true statement of the case ; that Mr. A. W. Pugin fre- 
 quently said (what is also perfectly true, and quite consistent 
 
 business letter written in a hurried and, I must confess, thoughtless manner, 
 but which I never imagined would be made public, and used as evidence in 
 support of a subject one in my jDosition could have no knowledge of — I feel it my 
 duty to explain this matter, 
 
 I was never employed upon or in connection with the Houses of Parliament, 
 but was with Mr. Myers, under whom I gained my knowledge of the late 
 Mr. Pugin. , 
 
 The sense in which I used the words “ Art-Architect” was solely in reference 
 to what I only knew to be Mr. Pugin’s position there, the designer and superin- 
 tendent of the wood-carving. 
 
 I have not, nor ever had, the slightest knowledge in what manner he was 
 connected with that building other than in this dejDartment, and my letter 
 distinctly disclaims the possession of any other knowledge. 
 
 I’or me to express an opinion on the subject the pamphlet deals with would 
 evince a presum])tion 1 am far from possessing. 
 
 I trust you will kindly accept this explanation in the spirit in which it is 
 tendered — that of removing the disagreeable impression it cannot fail to have 
 produced in your mind to find such a letter used as testimony in support of a 
 » cause you would know I was utterly ignorant of. 
 
 To my sur])rise 1 see in a preceding letter, signed by IVlr. William Chaiunan, 
 my father alluded to as having in conversation contributed to form the opinion 
 he has therein expressed. 
 
 My father, who is with me, says he never remembers to have heard such an 
 opinion exj)rcssed, and emphatically denies all recollection of any such conversa- 
 tion ; also 1 never, as is asserted, worked at St. Barnabas Church, Nottingham. 
 
 1 am, Sir, 
 
 Your obedient Servant, 
 
 Tiio.mas I'Iarp. 
 
 Chnrlcs liarrij, Ksq. 
 
NEW PAT.ACE AT WES^l'MlNSTEP. 
 
 If) 
 
 witli ]\[r. Talbot Biiry’s statomoiit) tliat the payment was of 
 much consequence to liini, and that he thonglit it better to 
 make sure of the money ; that his drawings were based on 
 the general plan (how could they be otherwise?); that in 
 the letter of 1845, Mv Herbert traced the hand of Sir C. 
 Barry, on which I need only refer to the fact, to be shown 
 hereafter, that it was actually based on a draft suggested by 
 Mv. A. W. Bngin himself. The only other notable point is a 
 statement of Mr. Herbert’s “indelible conviction,” which, with 
 all due respect, I venture to think of comparatively slight 
 value, when set against the evidence of eye-witnesses, who 
 were professionally engaged in carrying out the work, or 
 confidentially advising my father on the great features of 
 the design. 
 
 Few things can more clearly show the poverty of IMr. E. W. 
 Pugin’s evidence than the stress which he is forced to lay 
 on such letters as these. I cannot tell whether his father 
 may have made any unguarded statements, especially in the 
 latter years of his life, which may have been misunderstood 
 or exaggerated by the natural partiality of friends. But I 
 do not see how such vague reports can be pressed against 
 the documentary evidence of his explicit denials, given on 
 tlie authority of Mr. Ferrey, Mr. Kichardson, Mr. Talbot 
 Bury, and Mr. A. W. Pugin himself. As to the “ common 
 “ rumours,” these simply indicate the danger foreseen by 
 my father, and, as he always thought, sufficiently provided 
 against by positive testimony, and by Mr. A. W. Pugin’s 
 voluntary disclaimers. 
 
 (lY.) But after these evidences he relies greatly on his 
 father’s diary. In his first letter he referred to the entries in 
 that diary for 1836, apparently forgetting that the competition 
 drawings were sent in on December 1, 1835, and that these 
 references were therefore simply absurd ! He has since found 
 out his error ; he has corrected it without acknowledgment, 
 and now gives a long series of entries from the diary for 1835. 
 But this leads him to a greater difficulty still ; for he asserts 
 that Mr. A. W. Pugin “ began working on the Parliament 
 
16 
 
 THE AECHITECT OF THE 
 
 house drawings for Mr. Barry on the 15th of May,” when 
 it is well known that the conditions of the competition were 
 not announced till the end of Julij* He asserts also that 
 Mr. Barry was at Salisbury on September 1, 1835, when my 
 father’s own diary | proves him to have been in London, and 
 to have called on various persons there ; and on November 
 2nd-8th, when the same document states that he was in 
 town, working (as we know) night and day at his own design. J 
 What is the explanation of these extraordinary errors? 
 When we examine the quotations from the diary given on 
 p. 15 of his pamphlet, we find (it is true) many entries 
 of “ drawings for Mr. Barry,” but no word about the Parlia- 
 ment House in connexion with them. The fact is that they 
 w^ere drawings of fittings and furniture for the Birmingham 
 Grammar School. This Mr. E. W. Pugin might have known, 
 had he compared dates ; but it is proved to demonstration by 
 a comparison of my father’s diary with Mr. Pugin’s. 
 
 Thus in the latter we read — Ajpril 28^7z., “ Began Mr. Barry’s 
 drawings May Sth, “ Left Sarum May 10th, Saw Mr. 
 
 Barry in the former I find — May 9th, “ Birmingham 
 “ School, Mr. Pugin here with drawings of furniture.” 
 
 * The following is a copy of the notice referred to, from the ‘ London Gazette, 
 July 24th, 1835 : — 
 
 “ By order of the Commissioners of His Majesty’s Woods, &c. 
 
 » NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT. 
 
 “ Notice to Architects. ■ 
 
 “ The Commissioners of His Majesty’s Woods, &c., inform Architects, intending 
 “ to furnish designs for erecting the New Houses of Parliament, that such 
 “ designs must he delivered into this Office on or before the 1st day of Dec. next. 
 
 “ Designs to be addressed to Thomas Chawner, Esq. Particulars, with plan, 
 “ will be furnished for £1, between 2 and 4 on 27 July, and following days, till 
 “ Saturday 24 August.” 
 
 t This diary of Sir 0. Barry is kept in ‘ Richards’ Daily Remembrancer ’ 
 with great brevity, but extreme accuracy, not even the shortest journey being- 
 omitted. We sliould be hapi)y to produce it before a proper tribunal, and 
 should bo glad to see Mr. Pugin’s produced at the same time. 
 
 The entry on Sept. 1st, 1835, is as follows : — 
 
 “ Visited the Duchess of Sutlierland with design for S.W. drawing-room 
 “ chimney-piece, which was approved. Called on Westmacott with it, and gave 
 “ him instructions. Called on Chantrey respecting Trentham monument. ’ 
 
 i It is curious that on Nov. 7th, 1836, my father (as his diary shows) was at 
 Salisbury. I suspect that there is some confusion in Mr. Pugin’s diaries between 
 835 and 1836. 
 
NEW PALACE AT WESTMIN8TE1L 
 
 17 
 
 Ao-ain, in Mr. Pugin’s diaiy, 1 liiul — Maij “ Pegjui 
 
 “Mr. JWy’s work May 2m, “KSent oft* Mr. Pa,rry’s dniw- 
 “ ings.” My father’s diary says — May 2Is^, “ Iftriningliain 
 School, received drawings from Pugin.” 
 
 Blit tlie most curious point, and one wliich Mr. E. W. Pugin 
 onglit to liave understood, is this. In Mr. Pugin’s diary 1 
 find — September 2nd, “Sent off drawings of Dining Boom to 
 “ ]\[r. Barry.” Now, what could the “Dining Boom”. have 
 been in a general design for the New Houses of l^lrlia- 
 ment? Turn to my father’s diary, and we find— Se 2 )temher 
 2dth, “ Arrived at Salisbury from Bowood at half-past four. 
 “ Mr. Pugin at the White Hart to receive my dinn-tions as to 
 “ designs for the furnishing of Dr. Jeune's House ” (at the 
 Birmingham School). 
 
 This, even if taken alone, fully explains the “Dining 
 “ Boom,” and the “ drawings sent to Mr. Barry ” on Sept. 
 25th, Sept. 29th, and Oct 2nd. But we are not left to con- 
 jecture on this matter. It appears by Mr. Pugin’s diary that 
 Mr. Bury was engaged from Sept. 11th to Oct. 3rd on 
 Mr. Gillespie Graham’s drawings, and he expressly testifies, 
 in a statement to be given hereafter, that Mr. Pugin was at 
 work at that very time on drawings for the Birmingham 
 School. This evidence, coming from a perfectly independent 
 source, proves still more clearly the truth, wliich might tie 
 inferred from the diaries. 
 
 All these quotations from the diary are therefore absolutely 
 irrelevant. But to proceed. The next extract from the 
 diary for 1835 corresponds in part with my father’s diary, 
 and, in part, is quite irreconcilable with it. 
 
 Mr. Pugin’s name is first found in Sir C. Barry’s diary in 
 connexion with the New Houses of Parliament on October 
 12th-17th, 1835, when he was at my father’s house drawing. 
 It was to this visit (I have no doubt) that Mr. Talbot Bury 
 refers, as the first time when he saw the general design, 
 at which Mr. Barry had been at work ever since August. 
 It is' curious that, though Mr. Pugin’s own diary confirms 
 this, as given onp. 17 of his son’s pamphlet {October 12th-llth, 
 
 c 
 
18 
 
 THE ARCHITECT OF THE 
 
 “ Drew at Mr. B’s.”), yet that Mr. E. Pugin, because he wishes 
 to discredit Mr. Bury’s account, says at the top of the same 
 page : — Mr. T. Bury finished Mr. Graham’s drawings on 
 ‘‘ October 3rd, and my father did not leave Salisbury for 
 
 London before Kovember 19th.” (!) 
 
 So also the statement that Mr. Pugin was engaged at Mr. 
 Barry’s on “ working drawings ” and “ views ” from Nov. 
 22nd-29th is perfectly, and even curiously, consistent with 
 the statement of Mr. Wolfe and Mr. Bakewell given below. 
 
 But on Nov. 2nd, the diary given by Mr. Pugin states 
 
 Mr. Barry arrived,” when (as I have said above) my father’s 
 diary proves him to have been in town. There is clearly 
 some strange confusion here, which cannot be removed, unless 
 the two documents can be (as we have always desired they 
 should be) produced and compared. 
 
 It was to such inaccuracies and confusions as these, that I 
 before referred, when I asserted that Mr. E. W. Pugin must 
 have (I did not say intentionally) ‘‘ misdated or misquoted ” 
 his father’s diary.* I still must 9 -ssert most emphatically that 
 
 * The inaccuracy of Mr. E. W. Pugin’s writing is so great as materially to 
 impair its credit. I give some instances of detail : — 
 
 On p. 34 he states that I charged him with “ misdating and misquoting ” 
 letters. I never did so ; I used those words only of his references to liis father’s 
 diary, and I conceive that I have justified them. 
 
 On p. 37 he speaks of my father as “ about to touch 5 per cent, on tliree 
 “ millions of money,’’ when a comparison of the Letter VII. which he quotes, 
 shows that the expression there used is a mere joking allusion to a previous 
 letter of Mr. Pugin’s ; for, of course, my father never did receive 5 per cent., 
 and never did spend on the New Palace three millions of money. 
 
 On p. 43 he speaks of the fact that cartoons were designed by Mr. A. W- 
 Pugin for the windows of the House of Lords, as disproving the statement 
 that the “ detailed drawings were prepf.rcd at Thames Bank,” when he must 
 know that the reference is to stained glass, which was invariably put into 
 Mr. Pugin’s hands, and which is seldom included by any architect in “detailed 
 ‘ drawings.” 
 
 On p. 46 he conceives, by a curious logic, that the fact that Sir 0. Barry 
 meditated resignation in 1850, disproves Mr. Charles Barry’s statement, that he 
 had the same idea in 1845. Those who have read the record of my father’s 
 troubles at the latter period will have little difficulty in understanding, why he 
 at times thought of lesigning. 
 
 In reference to the request for advice as to some terminals to “ the flying 
 “ buttress to the Central Tower,” contained in the Letter XT. quoted on p. 48, 
 
NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTER. 
 
 19 
 
 his references, as they at present stand, are worth nothing at 
 all to his purpose. I have shown that much of the diary has 
 obviously nothing to do with the matter at all ; and tliat the 
 rest, even when accurate, is utterly insufficieiit to prove 
 Mr. E. Pugin’s point, while it is perfectly consistent witli the 
 account given by Mr. Wolfe and Mr. Talbot Bury of tlie 
 assistance actually rendered by Mr. A. W. Pugin. 
 
 So much tlien for the diary, on which so much stress lias 
 been laid. I think that after this analysis of its contents few 
 will be inclined to attach much value to it, or to the use 
 which has been made of it. 
 
 It will hardly be believed by those who have not carefully 
 followed the controversy, that this is the whole of the evi- 
 dence on which Mr. E. Pugin bases his charge. A numl)er 
 of letters from persons, not one of whom can speak from per- 
 sonal knowledge; a witness (Mr. Talbot Bury) who flatly 
 contradicts him ; and a diary, which is mostly irrelevant ! I 
 cannot wonder that in his letter of August 26th to the ‘ Pall 
 Mall Gazette,’ he should say, “ It is not without considerable 
 « regret, that I find myself compelled to enter into a state- 
 
 ment of facts, which would have been better told when the 
 
 he calmly adds in his letter to the ‘ Times,’ “the designs for which I find, hy 
 “ reference to the diary, my father made in 1835,” apparently ignorant of the 
 fact that the Central Tower formed no part of the original design, and was 
 added long after, to meet the requirements of Dr. Eeid, who was appointed 
 in 1840. 
 
 On p. IIG he says that “the Kev. A. Barry addressed the ‘Times,’ saying 
 “ that all Sir 0. Barry’s letters, diaries, &c., had been placed in his hands.” 
 “ I accordingly applied to him for the seventy-six letters.” Now, I never 
 said a word about “ letters ” in my postscript to the letter to the ‘ Times ’ 
 (which, I see, is quoted on p. 113 loithout the <postscript)i and in my letter 
 to Mr. E. Pugin’s solicitor I expressly pointed out the mistake, which is now 
 repeated. 
 
 On p. 118 our otfer, through our solicitor, to give all information about the 
 missing letters, is represented as “ seizing the straw held out to us by the 
 “ ‘ Building News,’” of Oct. 25th, when Mr. E. Pugin knows that the offer was 
 made, not in the last letter, which he quotes, of Nov. 5th, but in an earlier letter 
 of Mr. Cooper’s, on Oct. 24th, 1867, given at the end of this pamphlet. 
 
 These are all points of detail ; but I think they will show why we are unable 
 to accept Mr. E. W. Pugin’s statements and qiiotations as accurate, until they 
 have been tested by some proper examination. 
 
 c 2 
 
20 
 
 THE ARCHITECT OF THE 
 
 “ present generation had ceased to exist.” Fortunately the 
 eye-witnesses of the facts still Survive. It is, in fact, not a 
 little surprising, that at this distance of time we should be 
 able to present so complete a chain of evidence. On all the 
 important points of the case there is not a link wanting. 
 
 ( I.) I add accordingly here a detailed statement from J. L. 
 Wolfe, Esq., substantially the same as the short account 
 given in the ‘Life of Sir C. Barry,’ pp. 196-198, but contain- 
 ing details, which it is now necessary to adduce. At the risk 
 of some repetition, I have thought it better to give it exactly 
 as it stands, with a few prefatory remarks by its Author, 
 stating (what to all personal friends is well known) the rela- 
 tion in which he stood to my father. After reading this 
 statement, which Mr. Wolfe offered to make before any tri- 
 bunal, and on which he was willing to submit to any cross- 
 examination, I think few will need any further evidence on 
 this branch of the subject. 
 
 Prefatory Remarks. 
 
 “ It is with the greatest reluctance, as all who know me will 
 believe, that I have taken part in this controversy as to ‘ Who 
 was the art-architect of the Houses of Parliament ? ’ From all 
 controversy I instinctively shrink ; but it is especially painful 
 to me to appear as a detractor from the merits of a distinguished 
 artist, who is no longer here to answer me — of a man from 
 whose society I derived both instruction and pleasure —with 
 whom 1 never had a word of difference, and whose genius and 
 talents I have never ceased to admire. 
 
 “ No person knew better than myself how great were the 
 advantages Charles Barry derived from his intercourse with 
 A. Welby Pugin. They would have been great, even if Pugin 
 had never drawn a line for Barry — for, as I have said elsewhere, 
 ‘ whenever Barry’s fire of enthusiasm began to pale, a visit from 
 ‘ his “ comet ” (as Pugin was called by us), sufficed to brighten 
 ‘ it.’ * 
 
 * Mr. Purcell, in a well-written letter, has described his friend Pugin as a 
 man so lovingly devoted to his art, that, so long as he could contribute to its 
 glory, he was utterly indifferent to reward, either in fame or money. But, 
 
NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTER. 
 
 21 
 
 “ But Sir CliaiTes Barry was tho dear friend of all the best 
 years of my life, and as his reputation, not only as an architect 
 but as a man, has been most mercilessly, and, as I know, most 
 unfairly, assailed, I feel it to bo an imperative duty to st.and 
 forward and do my best to defend it. 
 
 “I shall not attempt to reply to Mr. Pugin’s lawyer-like 
 pamphlet. That is a task I must leave to others more com- 
 petent to perform it. I shall confine myself chiefly to a narra- 
 tive of circumstances within my own recollection — adding some 
 remarks that have occurred to me in reading tho statements 
 which, in various newspapers, Mr. Pugin has been moved to 
 publish. 
 
 “But as I am a chief witness in this case, and but little 
 known, I will here explain the nature of my relations with Sir 
 Charles Barry, of which Mr. Pugin himself seems to have been 
 so little aware, that he has classed me among Barry’s oidinary 
 clerks. 
 
 “Barry and I were fellow students in Italy in the year 1820, 
 and from that time to the end of his life we remained fast 
 and dear friends. I myself had what was then considered the 
 regular education of an architect — six years’ pupilage and three 
 years’ travel. So, when Barry commenced his career, I was 
 qualified, so far as education could make me so, to be his pro- 
 fessional friend. And, as I did not follow his profession, and, 
 therefore, no rivalry could exist between us, our intercourse 
 became, and ever continued, thoroughly confidential and un- 
 reserved. Both of us had been trained in the classical school 
 of our art, and both of us believed that the ‘ Sublime and 
 Beautiful ’ in architecture must depend on principles, that were 
 universal and eternal. But on minor matters there was suf- 
 ficient difference between my friend and myself to allow me to 
 become and remain his not useless critic. 
 
 “For many years, indeed up to the time when my friend 
 Edward M. Barry took his well-earned place at the head of his 
 father’s office, Barry seldom made a design without first con- 
 sulting me ; and when, during its progress, we differed on any 
 point of importance, he usually challenged me to explain my 
 ideas in drawing. And when it happened, as it sometimes did 
 happen, that he thought a sketch of mine worth consideration, 
 he laid it aside, and, at our next meeting, produced something 
 
 from my own observation, I should say thiit, althougli Pugin may have been 
 careless in money matters, he was the reverse of indifferent. 
 
22 
 
 THE ARCHITECT OP THE 
 
 that differed both from his own first idea and the one I had 
 suggested. But this tertium quid was essentially and decidedly 
 his own. 
 
 “For matters of importance, such as the great towers, in 
 which 1 took especial interest, I made innumerable sketches, and 
 even some careful drawings. But although, occasionally, this 
 friendly competition may have helped to modify Barry’s ideas, 
 I could not claim the authorship of any design, or any part of 
 a design, that Barry ever carried out. For, as I have said else- 
 where, ‘ Barry, of all the men 1 ever knew, was the one least 
 ‘ likely to adopt other people’s ideas in art.’ 
 
 “ Now, between Barry and Pugin no such competition ever 
 fixisted. But in everything that could be called a design or 
 a feature in architecture, Pugin was content to carry out Barry’s 
 ideas, as he has himself explained in his letter of 1845. "When 
 called upon he did not spare either criticisms or suggestions — 
 and very valuable they sometimes were— but he never, to my 
 knowledge, submitted to Barry even a sketch of his own ideas 
 of anything beyond detail. 
 
 “ The following statements were written when dated, and, 
 therefore, long before the publication of Mr. Pugin’s pamphlet. 
 But I have found nothing in that laboured production, which, 
 1 presume, contains his whole case, to induce me to alter a 
 single word. 
 
 “ Statement of facts relating to the authorship of the design for the 
 New Houses of Parliament, ivith some remarks on the statements 
 published by Mr. E. Welby Pugin in the ‘ Pall Mall Gazette ’ and 
 the ‘ Times' 
 
 Part 1. 
 
 In order that there may be no question, as to my having been 
 in a position to note the origin and progress of Barry’s ideas in 
 designing the Houses of Parliament, I will state that no sooner 
 was it known that a competition was shortly to take place, than 
 Barry made with me a rapid tour in Belgium with the view 
 of studying the Town Halls and other buildings from which 
 he hoped to obtain valuable hints for the designs he meant 
 shortly to prepare. Soon after our return home Barry sent a 
 copy of the instructions issued by the Commissioners of Works, 
 &c., for my consideration, and then after several preliminary dis- 
 cussions with me, and in my presence, he made the first sketches 
 
NEW PALA.CE AT AVESTMTNSTEK. 
 
 23 
 
 which compi’chended the entire design and contained the gevins 
 of all that followed.”'^ 
 
 “ Long before Barry sought Pugin’s assistance, the entire 
 design had been not only worked out in his own mind, but 
 committed to paper in a series of plans, elevations, and sections, 
 all drawn by his own hand, in his well-known and admired 
 style of pencilling. These drawings, though on a small scale, 
 were so minute, intelligible, and expressive, that any able 
 assistant could, under Barry’s eye, have worked out the details. 
 
 “ In general character the elevations differed little from those 
 in the competition design, but they were somewhat less ornate ; 
 indeed, those for New Palace Yard were in harmony with the 
 entrance front of Westminster Hall. 
 
 “ I had thus ample means of observing the progress of Barry’s 
 design in every phase of its development ; and, as attachment 
 to my friend, admiration for his genius, and ardent love for his 
 art, all combined to keep alive the deep interest I felt in the 
 great work he had in hand, it will not be thought surprising 
 that. I can now, after the lapse of so many years, make the 
 present statement with confidence. 
 
 “ Barry had already made considerable progress with a set of 
 drawings on a larger scale, and had even sketched many speci- 
 mens of detail, which he felt himself fully competent to design, 
 when he began to fear time would run short ; and it was then, 
 and mainly for that reason, that he determined to seek the 
 assistance of Pugin. But this was at so late a date that, had 
 not the designs, in plan and elevation, been definitely settled, 
 it would have been impossible, even with Pugin’s assistance, to 
 complete the competition drawings by the time fixed for their 
 reception — and as it was, they were not delivered till within a 
 few minutes of the last hour. 
 
 “ The first work Pugin was set to do was this. Barry laid 
 before him his own drawings, explained his views as to 
 character and style, gave him the requisite dimensions, and left 
 
 * The sketch of the Eiver Front was produced under these circumstances 
 Barry had been discussing the subject with me, who was staying in his house, 
 and, not feeling satisfied, retired to bed in that restless state well known to 
 doubting composers. But I had not been long asleep, when lie burst into my 
 room, exclaiming, “ Eureka ! I have got it at last !” and then and there, by tlic 
 glimmer of a rushlight, he rapidly sketched out the grand idea that had just 
 struck him. After a short sleep he was at his drawing-board, and, when I 
 rejoined him, there was the Eiver Front. 
 
24 
 
 THE ARCHITECT OF THE 
 
 him to work out the details. Therefore, Pugin prepared a com- 
 plete set of drawings, or rather of rough but masterly sketches 
 in pencil, showing on a large scale the details of every part of 
 the building, inside and out. Many of these drawings were 
 made in Barry’s office, while I was looking on, and were dashed 
 in with the facility of a scene-painter. 
 
 “ But, before these drawings were completed, Barry had begun 
 to have misgivings as to the use he could make of them, 
 and after discussions with me, his “ fresh-eye ” and critic, he 
 determined to lay them aside, and he did so for these reasons. 
 The details appeared to him so large, and even coarse, that he 
 feared they might lessen the scale of his work ; they were — in 
 Barry’s eye a great fault — ill-proportioned ; and he perceived in 
 them a tinge of foreign Gothic, sufficient to destroy the purely 
 English character he wished his building to exhibit. There 
 was another reason which to me, who knew my friend well, 
 seemed likely to have influenced him in rejecting Pugin’s 
 details — they were not entirely his own. So, when Barry came 
 to prepare his finished drawings, he adopted details of his own, 
 smaller in scale than those proposed by Pugin, and more purely 
 English. 
 
 “ This first set of drawings by Pugin having been completed 
 and laid aside, Barry engaged him to assist in preparing the 
 finished drawings to be sent in for competition ; and, accord- 
 ingly, he made several drawings, mostly perspective views, of 
 the important parts of the interior, such as the Houses of l.ords 
 and Commons, the Royal entrance and staircase, and others. 
 All these drawings were made from Barry’s own designs, and 
 under his direction, but were drawn and finished by Pugin in 
 his usual etching-like style, and they were sent in as they 
 come from his hand, without any attempt having been made (as 
 Mr. E. W. Pugin has insinuated) to conceal the fact that he 
 was the draughtsman. 
 
 “ Mr. E. W. Pugin has accused Barry of re-drawing his father’s 
 designs in order to make them appear as his own. But all 
 persons who worked under Barry knew, to their cost, that he 
 could never re-drav/ a design, even his own, without altering 
 it, to suit his almost fastidious taste, again and again. The 
 assertion that my friend ever practised the deception here laid 
 to his charge is a gross calumny. 
 
 “ Mr. E. W. ] ’ugin declares that his father’s diaries prove he 
 was engaged in designing for Barry during the greater part of 
 
np:w palace at Westminster. 
 
 25 
 
 1 835, altliough tlie entries quoted prove nothing more than that 
 Pugin was at work for Earry — nothing more than might liavc 
 been found in the diaries of aii}^ of Barry’s clerks. But lie 
 has omitted to explain that, during the greater part of 1835, 
 his father was employed by Barry in preparing drawings for 
 the internal fittings and furniture of the Birmingham Grammar 
 School.* I can safely affirm that up to the time when, as I 
 have already stated, Barry sought Pugin’s assistance there had 
 been no interchange of ideas between them relative to the 
 designs for the new Houses of Parliament. For Barry was 
 naturally anxious to keep his ideas secret, at all events till 
 it was too late for a rival, and such Pugin was reported to be, 
 to profi-t by them ; and Pugin, if he intended, as his son tells 
 us, to be a competitor, was not likely to risk his own defeat by 
 aiding a rival, and such a rival as Barry, f 
 
 “ Since writing the above remarks, I have had the opportunity 
 of referring to Barry’s diary for 1835, and I find that, down to 
 a certain date, all entries of communication with Pugin relate 
 to work at Birmingham and then, after an interval, during 
 which we know (from Mr. Talbot Bury) that he was at work 
 for Mr. G. Graham, there occurs in October 13th the first entry 
 of his employment on the New Houses of I’arliament. Mr. 
 E. W. Pugin has asserted — on what authority does not appear 
 — that his father, intending to be a competitor for the New 
 Houses of Parliament, prepared a complete set of designs, but 
 eventually sold them to Barry for 400 guineas, and that, 
 although they were afterwards lost sight of, these were the 
 identical designs carried out by Barry and claimed as his own. 
 
 “In reply to these extraordinary assertions, 1 declare that, 
 although I was almost constantly with Barry from the time 
 when he received the instructions issued by the Commissioners 
 up to the hour when his design was completed and sent in, yet 
 I neither saw these designs, nor did 1 ever hear of their exist- 
 ence, and as I was in my friend’s unreserved confidence, it was 
 morally impossible, that he could even have been acquainted 
 with these designs without my knowledge. 
 
 “With regard to the assertion that Barry paid Pugin 400 
 
 See the proofs of this on pp. 16-17, and the remarks of Mr. Talbot Bury, 
 to be given bereafter.— A. B. 
 
 t The more eftectiially to keep his designs secret, Barry had <y)nverted liis 
 nursery into a private drawing-office, to which no other persons were admitted 
 but his wife, myself, and a servant. 
 
26 
 
 THE ARCHITECT OF THE 
 
 guineas for an original design, it has been ascertained from 
 Barry’s cheque hooks that 41 3Z. 14s. was the total of all sums 
 paid by Barry to Pugin from the date of the latter’s first 
 employment at Birmingham up to 1 838, when he received a 
 cheque “ in full,” and these payments were for, not only the 
 whole of his work on the New Palace — described above — but 
 probably for all he had done for Barry at Birmingham, and for 
 all this he claimed no more than he was fairly entitled to as 
 a superior draughtsman. 
 
 “ Thus Mr. E. W. Pugin’s assertion proves to be no more 
 than one of those ‘ traditions,’ to which he appeals as 
 history.* 
 
 “ Having now explained what Pugin really did for Barry, I 
 repeat, what I have declared elsewhere, that when the compe- 
 tition drawings were sent in they did not exhibit a single 
 feature designed by Pugin. 
 
 “ I make this statement for the information of a younger gene- 
 ration, but by all architects and lovers of their art who saw the 
 competition drawings exhibited and compared Pugin’s own 
 design (sent in as Mr. Graham’s) with the successful design by 
 Charles Barry, such a statement must be considered altogether 
 unnecessary.” 
 
 This decisive statement is curiously confirmed by a letter 
 sent to my brother at the first opening of the subject, by a 
 gentleman personally unknown to us, who was in my father’s 
 office in 1835. 
 
 “26, Bennett's Hill, Birmingham, 
 “ To E. M. Barry, Esq. a September 26th, 1867. 
 
 “ Dear Sir, — Having seen a letter in the ‘ Standard ’ of the 
 24th inst. signed ‘ Initial,’ dated from Forest Hill, September 
 22nd, that there is some dispute as to who designed the Houses 
 of Parliament, I beg to state for your information, that I saw 
 your father make the original sketch in his office in Foley 
 
 * Mr. Pugin kas said that, in a letter in the ‘ Pall Mall Gazette/ I have 
 admitted that Barry paid Pugin a sum of 400 guineas, and he has assumed 
 that it was the price of an original design. Now as it was in my recollection 
 that Pugin received, in all, about 400L, I thought the assertion tJiat the sum 
 paid was 400 guineas might possibly be correct. It was not till Barry’s 
 cheque-books had been examined that I could give the particulars. 
 
NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTEP. 
 
 27 
 
 Place at tlie time I was with him. I find in a copy of my 
 diary, that I kept at his office, the following entry : — 
 
 ‘ Saturday, September 2Gth, 1835. — Houses of Parliament, to Inyiiig down 
 paper, &c., for ditto, 6 lio.’ 
 
 “ This paper was laid down for the express purpose of making 
 the competition drawings, your father having made the original 
 sketches some time previous to this date.'^' Your father was 
 about seven weeks in preparing these plans, after he had made 
 up his mind as to his plan and elevation, assisted hy Mr. Groves 
 and myself. The late A. W. Pugin came and helped to ink-in, 
 a few weeks previously to his sending in the plans ; your fatlier 
 having driven it off so late before commencing upon them, that 
 he was compelled to get some quick hand to help him. 
 
 “ The last entry I find respecting the original designs is : — 
 
 ‘ December 1st. — Houses of Parliament, G liours.’ 
 
 “ I believe this was the day I accompanied the plans to the 
 Office of Woods and Forests at Whitehall. 
 
 “ I do not know what has been said upon this subject, there- 
 fore I scarcely know how to write to you. 
 
 “ You are at liberty to make what use you think proper of 
 this communication. You can either make quotations from it, 
 or publish the whole. 
 
 “ Eemaining yours truly, 
 
 “ William Bakewell.” 
 
 (II.) With this statement must be compared the entirely 
 independent evidence given, from the other side, by Mr. Talbot 
 Bury in the letters quoted above (on pp. 7-11), and confirming 
 Mr. Wolfe’s evidence in every essential particular. 
 
 It should be added, that to Mr. Talbot Bury we are in- 
 debted for a hint, which has enabled us to explain a point, 
 on which Mr. E. Pugin has laid great stress — the large sum 
 of 400 guineas said to have been paid to his father for aid 
 in the competition designs. 
 
 In our first letters we allowed this to pass, because all my 
 
 * 111 my father’s diary I find — September 27th, 1835, “ Commenced design 
 “ in detail for the New Hou.ses of Parliament.” 
 
28 
 
 THE ARCHITECT OF THE 
 
 father’s cheque-books of that date had been lost ; and in con- 
 sequence of the subsequent failure of his bankers, Messrs. 
 Cockburn, we were unable to ascertain the truth by the bank- 
 ing records. But Mr. T. Bury, speaking from memory, 
 doubted tlie fact of the payment, and a subsequent discovery 
 of the counterfoils of the cheque-books (in the course of the 
 rigorous search instituted in consequence of Mr. E. W. Pugin’s 
 demand of the letters said to have been lent to my father) has 
 confirmed the doubt. In 1835, Mr. Pugin’s name does not 
 occur at all. In 1836, I find the following payments: — • 
 Feb. 10th, 105Z. ; June 22nd, 60Z. ; Dec. 19th, 18Z. 14s., 
 amounting not to 400 guineas, hut to 183Z. 14s., and of 
 this I do not feel sure that some did not belong to the Birm- 
 ingham Grammar School. In 1837, payments were made to 
 the amount of llOZ., and in 1838 there is a payment of 
 120Z. ‘‘ in full.” It is clear that these subsequent payments 
 were for the assistance given in working out the drawings for 
 the estimate, and no one can think them excessive for a first 
 class draughtsman. At that time Mr. A. W. Pugin was a 
 young man of 23, known as a man of ability and great know- 
 ledge of Gothic detail, but not as the designer of any great 
 building. His time (I have reason to believe) was reckoned 
 and paid for by the day, and such payment was a matter of 
 some consequence to him. The whole theory, which Mr. 
 E. W. Pugin has built up, is coloured by a remembrance of 
 the position which his father afterwards occupied, and is not 
 in the slisfhtest decree based on fact. 
 
 ( III.) But what did Mr. A. W. Pugin himself say on this 
 subject? 1 pass by for the present the important letter of 
 1845, which shall be alluded to hereafter. 
 
 I add, however, the evidence of Mr. Eerrey, the friend and 
 biographer of Mr. A, W. Pugin (in the ‘Pall Mall Gazette ’ of 
 August 24th). “ On more than one occasion, when mention- 
 
 “ ing to Mr. A. W. Pugin the common rumour that in reality 
 “ he was the author of the New Houses of Parliament, I re- 
 “ member well how energetically he denied the truth of the 
 
NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTER. 
 
 • 21 ) 
 
 “ report, bidding me to give it the most positive contradie- 
 “ tion, expressing in the warmest terms his admiration of Sir 
 “ C. Barry’s genius as an architect, and dwelling much on 
 “ the skill which he had shown in connection with the Houses 
 “ of Parliament.” 
 
 The same statement is made by IMr. C. J. Kichardson in 
 the ‘Times’ of September 17th. “I have heard Mr. Pugin 
 “ indignantly deny that he was the architect of these build- 
 “ ings, or had anything to do with them, beyond making 
 “ working drawings of ornamental detail.” 
 
 It may be not out of place to remark, that in the course 
 of the violent and unexampled attacks made on Mr. Barry, 
 after his success in the competition (referred to in pp. 151-154 
 of the ‘Life of Sir C. Barry’), when all kinds of insinuations 
 and reflections were freely made upon his skill and his cha- 
 racter, no single person ever thought (so far as we know) of 
 advancing a plea against him, wdiich, if it could have pre- 
 tended even to probability, would have been almost fatal to 
 his success. 
 
 The Editor of the ‘ Builder ’ in an article on Sej:)tember 
 14, 1867, adds — “the recollection of an indignant personal 
 “ denial of the rumour by Sir Charles Barry and ]\Ii\ Pugin 
 “ both.’*' 
 
 The same paper has since reiterated the statement, in a 
 review of the ‘Life of Sir C. Barry,’ on November 30, 1867, 
 in which the following private Jetter of my father’s is 
 quoted : — 
 
 “ Westminster, Sept. 25, 1852. 
 
 “ Dkar Godwin, — T am much obliged to you for the just men- 
 tion you have made in your memoir of poor Pugin, of the part 
 he has taken in the decorations of the New Palace at West- 
 minster. It relieves me of all necessity of contradicting the 
 false reports that have been put in circulation on the subject. 
 I would almost rather let it be supposed that the whole of any 
 credit, that may bo due to the work, should be attributed to him, 
 than that I should be obliged to put forth any statement of 
 facts at the present time, that might to an ill-natured world 
 
30 
 
 'I'HE ARCHITECT OF THE 
 
 appear to be nngenerous, and calculated to dim in some degree 
 the lustre of his great fame. 
 
 “ Yours, very sincerely, 
 
 “ Chaeles Barry.” 
 
 The following letter from the Kev. Benjamin Webb, well 
 known as an Ecclesiologist, and a friend of Mr. A. W. Pugin, 
 is equally distinct in its testimony. 
 
 “Jaw. 24, 1868. 
 
 “ Dear Dr. Barry, — You are quite welcome to use my testi- 
 mon}^ that Augustus Pugin (whom I knew intimately) never 
 claimed for himself the merit of designing the Houses of Parlia- 
 ment. In fact, I think he sometimes used to criticize the eleva- 
 tions somewhat unfavourably. But I never remember him 
 speaking otherwise than kindly and respectfully of your father. 
 No doubt, after the ground plan had been arranged, Pugin ren- 
 dered very important subordinate services to Sir Charles Barry, 
 and made his unrivalled knowledge of Third-Pointed detail avail- 
 able for the more complete working out of this great national 
 building. 
 
 “ This is the utmost that can be said of Pugin’s share in the 
 work, in my own opinion : and I think the friendly co-operation 
 between him and Sir Charles Barry, was equally creditable to 
 both artists. I have said as much as this to Mr. Edward Pugin, 
 and am sorry on all grounds that he has thought fit to raise this 
 question. 
 
 “ I am ever, dear Dr. Barry, 
 
 “ Very truly yours, 
 
 “Benjn. Webb.” 
 
 What is to be said to all this? The answer given may 
 well illustrate the old saying, “ Save me from my friends.” 
 Mr. E. W. Pugin considers that this was a part of his father’s 
 having “ sold his brains,” and (I presume) his honour with 
 them ; and Mr. Purcell (in a letter to the ‘ Times ’ of Sep- 
 tember 10) considers that Mr. Pugin was “a genius” — an 
 “enthusiast” for Gothic architecture — of “scrupulous and 
 “ almost Quixotic delicacy,” and that therefore — in order to 
 help forward a design, of which (be it remembered) he 
 greatly disa})proved and on his own principles must have 
 
NEW. PALACE AT WESTMINSTER. 
 
 31 
 
 disapproved — lie became a party to a systematic fraud, and 
 told falselioods, whenever it was desirable to do so ! 
 
 It is hardly necessary, after the failure of evidence on tlic 
 one side and its abundance on tlie other, to do more to meet 
 this charge. I have only to call attention, in conclusion to 
 the extraordinary improbability of the whole story — of the 
 existence of such a compact between men like Sir C. Harry 
 and ]\[r. A. W. Pugin — of the possibility of its being kept 
 secret, if it had existed, for more than thirty years. I may 
 add that any one who can judge of architectural work, and 
 who will compare Mr. Pugin’s principles of design and 
 actually erected works, with the general design and details 
 of the New Palace, will feel that they are radically and 
 manifestly different. The design, which Mr. Pugin did send 
 in, under the name of Mr. Gillespie Graham, was actually 
 thus different, both in detail and in principle, from the com- 
 petition design of Mr. Barry and the existing building. While 
 Mr. Barry’s was, almost from the first, recognised as pre-emi- 
 nent, this design of Mr. Pugin’s did not even secure one of 
 the premiums, or attract any special notice of the judges or 
 of the public. In truth, the a p4ori improbability of the 
 whole story is such, that nothing but a mass of conclusive 
 evidence could induce any one even to give it a moment’s 
 consideration, and the evidences adduced will not bear the 
 slightest scrutiny. 
 
 ( B ) — Subsequent Work at the New Palace at 
 Westminster. 
 
 I pass on now to the second part of Mr. E. W. Pugin’s 
 statement, that after my father’s appointment as architect, 
 Mr. A. W. Pugin was “called upon to complete his work,” 
 and that he had to produce all “ the working drawings and 
 “ details of the building,” i. e. “ the full-size drawings of the 
 “features” of the “design and of each separate component 
 
THE ARCHITECT OF THE 
 
 part thereof, with their construction and application dis- 
 “ tinctly delineated.” In fact, according to. this statement, 
 Mr. A. W. Pugin was in all that related to art, the real 
 architect of the building. 
 
 Before entering upon the subject, I may perhaps be allowed 
 to quote, from a passage written before this controversy was 
 thought of, what is the view of the case which Sir C. Barry’s 
 representatives put forward. 
 
 “ As soon as he was appointed architect to the New Palace, he 
 immediately thought of his friend, and resolved to invite him 
 to his aid. Convinced that Mr. Pugin was at that time un- 
 rivalled in his knowledge of Gothic detail, admiring his extra- 
 ordinary powers as a draughtsman, carried away by S3mipathy 
 with his burning artistic enthusiasm, he could wish for no 
 other coadjutor. The invitation was accepted, and a connection 
 was established equally honourable to both artists. No man 
 was more original than Mr. Pugin. He held strongly certain 
 principles, on the evolution of which he greatly disagreed with 
 his friend ; he was one whose name and genius could at all 
 times command an independent authority. Yet for the fur- 
 therance of his art he was wdlling to accept a distinctly subor- 
 dinate position, and to work under the superintendence and 
 control of another. His acceptance of the post, and the spirit 
 in which he discharged its duties, showed the generosity and 
 unselfishness which were his well-known characteristics. Nor, 
 on the other hand, could Mr. Barry be unaware of the danger 
 of calling in a too powerful coadjutor. He knew the almost 
 inevitable risk which he incurred of being supposed to wear 
 other men’s laurels, of having all that was good or spirited in 
 the details attributed to Mr. Pugin, and of finding it difficult 
 or impossible to control an enthusiasm, which might work in 
 what seemed to him undesirable methods. But these things 
 he resolutely put aside for the sake of an aid which he thought 
 likely to improve his great building and which he knew to be 
 genial and inspiriting to himself. That Mr. Pugin was the 
 last man in the world to encroach on another man’s authority 
 or credit he knew, and that this confidence in his friend’s cha- 
 racter was not misplaced is shown by the strong disclaimer 
 which he put out, when an attempt was made to attribute to 
 
NEW PALACE AT WESTMINS'I'ER. 
 
 him more than he felt to be his due. The misapprehensions of 
 others he could afford to disregard. 
 
 “ The first aid which he received from Mr. Pugin was under 
 the pressure of shortness of time in making the original design. 
 Working under Mr. Barry’s own eye and direction, Mr. Pugin 
 sketched for him in pencil a complete set of details, in a style 
 perhaps bolder, less carefully proportioned and less purely 
 English, than would have been adopted by himself. In the 
 design they differed ioto coelo. Mr. Pugin would have recom- 
 mended irregular and picturesque grouping of parts, utterly at 
 variance with the regularity and s^unmetry actually adopted. 
 Except in details, he neither had, nor could have had, any 
 influence Avhatever, and those who compare the details of his 
 own buildings with those of the New Palace will readily see 
 that even here his influence, however valuable, was chiefly 
 indirect. 
 
 “ After Mr. Barry’s appointment as architect, he still received 
 the same aid in preparing detailed drawings for the estimate, 
 most of which however, by changes in design, were afterwards 
 set aside. Finally, at his recommendation, Mr. Pugin was 
 formally appointed superintendent of the wood-carving, and in 
 that capacity he directed, first the formation of a valuable 
 collection of plaster casts of the most famous examples at home 
 and abroad, and next the execution of the wood-work, orna- 
 mental metal-work, stained glass, and encaustic tiles through- 
 out the whole building. But in all cases it was thoroughly 
 understood between them, that the architect’s supremacy was 
 to be unimpaired. Every drawing passed under his eye in all 
 cases for supervision, in very many for alteration. i\lr. Pugin’s 
 originality and enthusiasm never interfered with this under- 
 standing ; he would carry out vigorously and heartily what he 
 himself could not altogether approve. His suggestions and 
 criticisms, freely given and freely received, were invaluable ; 
 and his enthusiasm, even in its eccentricities, was inspiring 
 and irresistible. For more than five-and-twenty years the 
 intercourse between the two friends and coadjutors continued, 
 unbroken by any differences except in taste, and, when Mr. Pugin 
 was struck down by his fatal illness, Mr. Barry felt that his 
 loss was irreparable.”— L^7e of Sir C. Barry, c. vi., pp. 195-198. 
 
 It will be seen from this extract, that there is no disposi- 
 tion on our part to depreciate the value of Mr. Pugin’s 
 
 1 ) 
 
34 
 
 THE AECHITECT OF THE 
 
 services. Those services are once^more emphatically dwelt 
 upon in the account given in the same work, of the internal 
 desio:n and fittins^s of the House of Lords. But the claim 
 which is now put forward is widely different, and that claim 
 we can most distinctly disprove. 
 
 I shall, as before, first examine the evidences on which it 
 is based. 
 
 ( I.) In the first place, Mr. E. W. Pugin refers once more 
 to the diary* (pp. 20, 21). But little stress is laid upon 
 it in this case, because its entries merely show — what no 
 one has ever denied — that Mr. A. W. Pugin was at work for 
 my father on the detailed drawings required for the estimate, 
 which had to be prepared in a great hurry, and to be laid 
 before Parliament at the beginning of 1837. The question 
 is. What was the nature of that help ? 
 
 ( II.) In order to answer this, Mr. E. W. Pugin refers to 
 some thirty-nine letters of my fatlier’s. These seem to be 
 arranged on the principle on which inferior troops are massed 
 in column ; the first few alone are important, the others are 
 simply added to give mass and weight. 
 
 It may be known to some of my readers that the publica- 
 tion of Mr. E. W. Pugin’s pamphlet was delayed by us, until 
 the originals of these letters could be verified, and authentic 
 copies of them taken. This step on our part appears to have 
 excited some surprise ; but I think that such surprise will 
 cease, when attention has been called to the insertion, 
 which he has thought fit to m.ake in the first letter, and 
 the portions, which he has also thought it right to omit, in 
 the first letter of the second series, given on p. 35 of his 
 pamphlet. We felt (as I have said elsewhere) that no de- 
 pendence could be placed on partial quotations ; though un- 
 doubtedly we were not quite prepared to find what, by the 
 
 * I observe that Mr. Graham’s name is here again brought in. Of course, 
 the drawings done for him could have no reference to the Houses of Parliament, 
 for the competition was decided in January, 1836. The mention of him is 
 therefore entirely irrelevant. 
 
NEW TALACE AT WESTMINSTER. 
 
 85 
 
 use of tbe authentic copies, we have actually discovered. I 
 may add also that our demand was made on October 24th, 
 1867, before the pamphlet actually appeared, and tliat it was 
 only because this demand was neglected, that we felt bound 
 to object to the publication of the pamphlet on November 
 18th. Had our reasonable demand been complied with, the 
 pamphlet would not have been delayed a single da}^* 
 
 I proceed now to the examination of these letters. Three 
 only need to be examined in detail ; the rest may bo easily 
 characterized and dismissed. 
 
 (a) The first letter is that of September 23rd, 1836 
 (p. 23). In this, Mr. Barry states that he has forwarded 
 “ a parcel of tracings,” which will furnish the necessary 
 “ data for the preparation of a large batch of internal details, 
 “including the two Houses complete, the King’s Bobing- 
 “room. Gallery and Staircase, and tlie Entrance Vestibule.” 
 Now the whole question here is clearly this. What was the 
 nature of these data ? Mr. E. W. Pugin, to prove his view 
 of the question, actually inserts the words dimensions) ” 
 
 after the ivord dataf without anything whatever to indicate 
 that they are notin the original ! He also goes on to assume 
 that the tracings sent were merely “ plans,” and that “ de- 
 “ signs and details” with “sections,” including, in fact, all 
 the artistic part of the design, are required. Now, when we 
 examine the letter, we find that the “ designs and details ” 
 asked for are merely those of “ wall framing,” and the 
 sections are evidently those of stone- work on a large scale, 
 “ half an inch or one inch to the foot.” The question, there- 
 fore, still remains. What were the tracings sent? In his 
 letter to the ^ Times,’ Mr. E. W. Pugin calmly assumes that 
 they were “ tracings from my father’s ” (Mr. A. W. Pugin’s) 
 “ drawings,” evidently conceiving, most truly, that they were 
 something more than plans. He has now changed his ground 
 by another equally gratuitous assumption, and insists that 
 they were plans only. But it happens that, by examination 
 
 The original letter of our solicitor to Messrs. Longmans, on Oct. 24th, 
 1867, contains these words “ Sir Charles Barry’s executors liave no wish to 
 “hinder in the slightest degree the publication of the pamphlet.” 
 
 I) 2 
 
36 
 
 THE ARCHITECT OP THE 
 
 of my father’s diary, I can answer the question. I find there 
 the following entry ~Se]ptem})er 23rd, 1836, “Forwarded to 
 “ Pugin tracings of the three floors complete, and sections 
 “ to enable him to proceed with the details of the interior. 
 “ Letter to him thereon.” The letter therefore, properly 
 understood, merely shows a kind of assistance which we have 
 gladly acknowledged, and the nature of which will be abun- 
 dantly illustrated by letters hereafter to be quoted.* 
 
 {h) I proceed now to the second letter, Oetoher 22nd, 1836, 
 in wliich Mr. Barry acknowledges the receipt of the drawings 
 above requested, and states that they “ afforded him a rich 
 “ treat.” Much is made of this last phrase ; but those who 
 know the extreme beauty of Mr. A. W. Pugin’s drawings, 
 especially in those details in which he chiefly excelled, will 
 think it not altogether hyperbolical. It goes on to say that 
 Mr. Barry has sent “ tracings of the grand public entrance 
 “ and approach to the Houses and Committee-rooms ” to give 
 the data required ; and finally — provided that this part of 
 “the building be of a simple and massive character,” and 
 that a “central pillar be avoided” — it permits the “groin- 
 “ ing and interior generally of the King’s or Eecord Tower 
 “ entrance,” which was at this time being hurriedly altered, 
 to be made “ of any design you think proper.” t 
 
 Now this distinct permission to determine the design of 
 one definite portion, evidently, according to all logical 
 rules, implies that such express permission was required, 
 as being exceptional and not general. Yet Mr. E. W. Pugin 
 actually argues that the expression, “ this part of the build- 
 “ ing,” implies that “ my father designed other parts to the 
 “ plan sent to him ” (! !) and all this in the face of the 
 fact, that of the other parts of the building tracings were 
 actually sent at this very time. Again I repeat, tliat this 
 letter also, although it is the strongest to which he can refer, 
 fails entirely to support the wide inferences which he lias 
 drawn from it. 
 
 * See especially Mr. Gibson's letter on p. 72. 
 
 t The wlif.le ()f this work was subsequently thrown aside, when important 
 modifications were mad(‘ al)out 1848. 
 
NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTER. 
 
 37 
 
 But it may still be asked, what was the actual nature of 
 the work done ? This can be best answered by a letter from 
 K. K. Banks, Esq., then at the head of my father’s office. 
 
 “ 1, Westminster Chambers^ Victoria Street^ S. W., 
 January \0th, 18(58. 
 
 “My dear Dr. Barry, — I see that Mr. E. Bugin in his 
 pamphlet appears to misunderstand the nature of his father’s 
 work for Sir C. Barry after the competition was decided, lie 
 says, p. 19, ‘My father commenced working again for Sir C. 
 ‘ Barry in August, 1836,’ which, I believe, is quite correct. 
 This was at the time when an estimate of the cost of tlie entire 
 building was ordered to be prepared by the Government, they 
 being unwilling to sanction the commencement of the works 
 without having a detailed estimate. Sir C. Barry states in his 
 letter of the 17th April, 1837 (given by Mr. Pugin on page 31) 
 that the Board of Works had then just finished the examination 
 of his estimate which had been sent to them at the end of 
 January, 1837 ; there had thus been about five months only 
 occupied, in the preparation of the entire set of drawings, and 
 in making the estimate. During a considerable portion of this 
 time, Mr. Pugin was employed, with myself and other assistants, 
 in preparing a complete set of drawings under the incessant 
 direction of Sir C. Barry, who gave himself but little rest the 
 whole time, working from six in the morning till after mid- 
 night. Mr. Pugin of course, from his knowledge of matters 
 of Gothic detail, was requested to confine himself to getting out 
 sheets of details of portions of the elevations and various 
 internal fittings, such as doors, panelling, fireplaces, &c., whilst 
 others, whose talents lay more in structural matters, made 
 details of roofs, floors, &c., the general staff being occupied in 
 the more mechanical labour of making out the entire set of 
 drawings. These drawings, as fast as they were prepared, 
 were put into the hands of the well-known surveyor, Mr. 
 H. A. Hunt, who was working vigorously to take out the 
 quantities ; and the whole work was marvellously quickly 
 done. The sheets of details prepared by Mr. Pugin were 
 never intended hy Sir C. Barry to he used as drawings from which 
 to execute the works, their object being to show the surveyor 
 the relative costliness of the various parts of the work, and 
 to insure the provision by him in the estimate of sufficient 
 
38 
 
 THE ARCHITECT OF THE 
 
 amount to cany out works with a similar amount of elabo- 
 ration. Accordingly the work was never executed from them, 
 and bears but little resemblance to them, since every part of 
 building was designed and re-designed, when the time for its 
 execution arrived, by Sir C. ;©arry — in some parts, I should 
 think, ten times over. 
 
 “As the above drawings for estimate were made, while I 
 occupied a principal position in Sir C. Barry’s ofSce, and, as 
 I worked myself incessantly upon them, I am able to speak 
 confidently as to the above facts, and I have no doubt Mr. Hunt 
 can confirm what I have stated about the estimate. 
 
 “ Yours sincerely, E. E. Banks.” 
 
 (c) From this it will be clearly seen what is the real mean- 
 ing of these two letters, which have been so loudly and 
 emphatically proclaimed as decisive on the matter. But 
 the latter is at least quoted with accuracy. I cannot say 
 the same of the next letter. 
 
 I must call special attention to this letter, the first of the 
 Second series (given on p. 35 of Mr. E. Pugin’s pamphlet), 
 referring to the fittings and decorations of the House of Lords. 
 It is very important, because it was the beginning of Mr. 
 A. W. Pugin’s regular engagement, and on it his son has laid 
 great stress, as showing that Sir Charles was perfectly helpless 
 without his art-architect.” He becomes even eloquent on 
 the “ great necessity ” which it disclosed, and “ deep humilia- 
 “ tion ” which it involved. Accordingly he prints it thus : — * 
 
 “ Dear Pugin, — I am in a regular fix respecting the working 
 drawings for the fittings and decorations of the House of Lords, 
 which it is of vital importance to me should now be finished 
 with the utmost possible despatch. ... I know of no one who 
 can render me such valuable and efficient assistance, or can so 
 thoroughly relieve me of my present troubles of mind in respect 
 of these drawings as yourself, &c., &c.” 
 
 The extracts are well chosen, in order to support his view. 
 Fortunately I can now subjoin a full copy of the letter, 
 
 * In the quotation of this letter in the ‘ Times,’ there is not even a mark of 
 omission. 
 
NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTER. 
 
 S!) 
 
 placing between brackets the parts omitted by ]\[r. E. AV. 
 Pugin. The comparison will probably astonish most of my 
 readers. (The italics are mine.) 
 
 “ 3, Marine Parade, Brighton, 3 Sept. 1844. 
 
 “Dear Pugin, — I am in a regular fix respecting the work- 
 ing drawings for the fittings and decorations of the House 
 of Lords, which it is of vital importance to mo should now hci 
 finished with the utmost possible dispatch. [Although 1 
 have now made up my mind as to the principles, and, generally, as 
 to the details of the design for them, including a neiv design 
 for the throne, which is at last perfectly satisfactory to me, I am un- 
 fortunately unable to get the general drawings into such a, definite 
 shape, as is requisite for preparing the ivorlcing details, owing to a 
 lameness in one of my legs, which has laid me on my bach, either in bed 
 or on the sofa, for the last ten days, and is, I fear, likely to keep me in 
 the same position for some days, or, perhaps, loeeks to come, at tliis 
 place, where I have been advised to take up my quarters for 
 the advantage of change, sea air, bathing, &c., &c. Now, as] 1 
 know of no one who can render me such valuable and efficient 
 assistance, or can so thoroughly relievo me of my present 
 troubles of mind in respect of these said drawings as yourself, 
 [I am induced to write to jmu in the hope that you may be botli 
 able and willing to pass two or three days, or even a week, witli 
 me for the purpose of making out the drawings in question, and 
 of enabling me to consult you generally, and enter into some 
 permanent arrangement that will be satisfactory to you, as to 
 occasional assistance for the future in the completion of the 
 great work, as well as for the discharge of my obligations to 
 you for what you have already done. 1 feel quite sure, that, if 
 we were here together quietly for a few days, ice should be able 
 to make out definitively every portion of the design of the House of 
 Lords’ fittings, &c., in general drawings, so that you might 
 be able to supply me with the details subsequently, from 
 time to time, according to your leisure and convenience. I 
 earnestly hope you will give me a line, by return of post, 
 
 * I make one remark on the address (“ Dear Pugin ” instead of the “ Dear 
 Sir” of the former letters) and the general tone of this letter, as bearing upon 
 the question of the supposed estrangement, so constantly referred to by i\Ir. 
 E. W, Pugin, between his father and Sir C. Dairy. Is it in the least degree 
 like a letter, written “ after many years’ disruption of intercourse, ’ to a person 
 with whom there had been any cause of quarrel ? 
 
40 
 
 THE ARCHITECT OE THE 
 
 expressive of your consent to fall into the arrangement which 
 I have proposed, and to name a time when I may expect to 
 have the pleasure of seeing you. 
 
 “ I have all the requisite drawings ivith me, together with a good 
 supply of drawing-paper, tackle, &c. It would really do me 
 good, both in body as well as in mind, to have you with me ; 
 therefore, pray do not disappoint me if you can in any way 
 help it.] Believe me, dear Pugin, yours very truly, 
 
 “ Charles Barky. 
 
 “ The weather here is delicious and exhilarating, and the 
 proposed change would be sure to do you good.” 
 
 I think comment on this style of quotation needless. 
 When Mr. E. W. Pugin can think himself justified in sup- 
 pressing, first, the declaration that my father had “quite 
 “ made up his mind as to the principles, and, generally, as 
 “ to the details of the design ; ” next, the fact that he required 
 Mr. Pugin’s help “ because of a lameness in one of his 
 “ legs,* which kept him in bed or on the sofa,” and so 
 made it impossible for him to get out the drawings him- 
 self; thirdly, the statement that my father had “all the 
 “ requisite drawings ” ready, and intended, with Mr. Pugin’s 
 aid, to make out, then and there, “ definitively every portion 
 
 * This was, as I remember, caused by a railway accident. I find in my 
 father’s diary for 1844 : — 
 
 Aug. 19 to 30 .. .. Unwell. 
 
 August 30 Quitted London for Brighton on account of illness. 
 
 Aug. 31 to Sept. 9 .. Unwell. 
 
 Sept. 10 Mr. Billing came to me to assist in preparing 
 
 drawings. 
 
 Sept. 19 (Thursday) .. Mr. Pugin came to me, and assisted with draw- 
 ings for finishings of House of Lords. 
 
 Sept. 23 (Monday) . . Mr. Pugin left me. 
 
 Sept. 27 Quitted Brighton for town ; stopped and slept 
 
 at Reigate. 
 
 Sept. 30 At J. L, W.’s (Mr. Wolfe’s). At drawings for 
 
 finishings of House of Lords. 
 
 Oct. 1, 2, 3, 4, to 15, and 
 
 so on till Dec. 13 .. Ditto. Ditto. 
 
 It will be seen from the above, that my father, though unwell, was con- 
 
 stantly at work, and that Mr. Pugin’s visit extended only over five days, one 
 of which was a Sunday, and two others partly, if not wholly, occupied with 
 travelling between Rfimsgate and Brighton. 
 
NEW PALACE AT WES^i'MINSTElL 
 
 41 
 
 “of the design for fittings, &c., in general drawings” — it is 
 certainly time to demand tliat his evidences be bronglit 
 before a proper tribunal, or that, when tliis is refused, at 
 least the fairness of his quotations, be tested. A cause which 
 needs such support, is virtually lost. 
 
 We possess the design for the Throne referred to. It is 
 dated 17 Dec., 1844, and is entirely drawn by my father. 
 It is to a scale of four feet to an inch, wliicli will explain 
 to professional readers that it is sufficient to show the details 
 clearly enough to enable any good assistant to make the 
 working drawings from it. We also possess the details 
 made by Mr. Pugin from this design, dated May, 1845, which 
 details were carried into execution, subject to alterations 
 made in them by my father when they were modelled and 
 in progress at Thames Bank. A photograph of my father’s 
 drawing is given as a frontispiece to this Statement. 
 
 (d) The other letters, except the last, need little notice. 
 Letter 3 speaks of “ exquisite details ; ” Letter 4 of “ vanes ; ” 
 Letter II. of the next series, of some details, apparently of the 
 throne ; Letter III. of “ gas fittings and hinges ; ” Letter IV. 
 “ of cartoons for stained glass ; ” Letter V. of “ furniture, 
 “ upholstery, and metal- work ; ” Letter VI. of Mr. Barry’s 
 contemplated resignation ; Letter VII. of decorations of 
 the House of Commons ceiling, which Mr. Barry disap- 
 proves of, and for which he encloses a sketch of scroll- 
 work, and a templet of certain shields for heraldry ; 
 Letter VIII. of candlesticks, a pump, and inkstands ; 
 Letter IX. of heraldic devices ; Letter X. of “ stained 
 “ glass ; ” Letter XI. encloses a tracing of a flying buttress of 
 the Central Tower, asking advice about “animal terminals;” 
 Letter XII. of “crowned shield and supporters below;” 
 Letters XIII.-XXXIV. of tiles, stuffs, cloak-stands, arms, 
 details of gates, furniture, railings, brackets, boxes, umbrella- 
 stands, metal fire-guards, candlesticks, inkstands. 
 
 I cannot be sorry that Mr. E. W. Pugin has thouglit it 
 worth while to print such letters as these. What can show 
 more distinctly the minute character of the details entrusted 
 
42 
 
 THE ARCHITECT OP THE 
 
 to Mr. A. Puo^in ? But I must add that the letters often 
 contain criticisms and orders for alteration by Sir C. Barry 
 (omitted usually in Mr. E. W. Pugin’s pamphlet) showing 
 the unremitting care with which he himself considered every 
 detail of his great building, even such as had been entrusted 
 to so able a subordinate. Ear from shaking our statement 
 they accord with it most fully. 
 
 (e) The last letter refers to ‘‘working drawings for the 
 “ Clock Tower ” and new front to Old Palace Yard ; and as 
 this has been misunderstood, as, for example, by Mr. Fer- 
 gusson in his letter to the ‘Builder’ of Jan. 4th, 1868, I 
 think it better to subjoin here a statement of my brother 
 Mr. E. M. Barry, who was, at the time to which they refer, 
 my father’s confidential assistant. Written in that spirit of 
 appreciation of Mr. E. W. Pugin’s genius which he has always 
 shown, it yet fixes, with perfect distinctness, the value of the 
 evidence deduced from the above letters. 
 
 “ fVestminster, 9 Jan. 1868. 
 
 “ My dear Alfred, — The letters of Sir C. Barry published by 
 Mr. E. Pugin, call for a few words of comment. Not one of 
 them is printed entire, and it is evident that they are private 
 and confidential communications to a trusted friend, and meant 
 for his eye alone. I abstain, however, from any remarks as to 
 their publication under these circumstances. They prove, what 
 has never been denied, that Pugin worked at the details of 
 Sir C. Barry’s designs. Moreover, some of the matters enu- 
 merated, such as ‘ gas coronals, table candlesticks, pole screens, 
 ‘ easy chairs, pump, inkstands, paper-holders, patterns for stuffs, 
 ‘ umbrella-stands, letter-boxes, &c.’ were, possibly, designed as 
 well as detailed by Pugin, though for some, even of these 
 trifling articles, I saw my father make the original sketches. 
 But as regards Mr. E. Pugin’s assertion, that his father was 
 in any sense of the word the architect of the building, the 
 letters prove, and could not but prove, nothing whatever. 
 There is nothing in them, that any architect of a great public 
 work might not have written to an assistant, and they do not 
 refer to any, even of the less important features of the building 
 except in the following cases. I. The flying buttresses of the 
 Pentral Tower. II. The panels flanking the open galleries 
 
NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTER. 
 
 4R> 
 
 between the windows of the Victoria Tower. And III. Tlie 
 Clock Tower, and the new front in Old Palace Yard. 
 
 “ On the letters generally I may I'emark tliat some of tlicm 
 were evidently written to Mr. Pugin as the representative of the 
 contractors, Messrs. Hardman, Minton, and others, who, as is 
 well known, employed Mr. A. W. Pugin to make out their large 
 cartoons and full-size working drawings, from which the articles 
 supplied by them were manufactured. This circumstance is 
 illustrated by such entries as the following in my father’s 
 Diaries : — 
 
 1851. Aug. 28. — Accompanied Pugin and Hardman over the works, de- 
 
 termining as to models of lighting, and giving them orders for 
 chandeliers, brackets, &c. 
 
 , , Oct. 80. — Accompanied P. over the works to inspect patterns of 
 
 chandeliers. 
 
 , , Aug. 22. — At Worsley. Pugin and Hardman called. 
 
 1852. Jan. 15. — Letters to Pugin with orders. 
 
 , , Feb. 11. — Mr. Minton here respecting his disagreement with Pugin. 
 
 1844. Lee. 11.— Mr. Pugin here with parts of railing for House of Lords : — 
 Lbs. per lb. £ s. d. 
 
 , , , , A. W. P. — 22 Small vanes 3s 3 6 0 
 
 52 Large vanes 3s. lOd 9 19 4 
 
 16 Crowns 5s. 4d 4 5 4 
 
 , , Lee. 12. — Report to the Board as to employment of Mr. Pugin 
 
 “ I will now take the three points above noted seriatim. 
 
 “ I. The flying buttresses of the Central Tower. This refer- 
 ence does not apply, as Mr. E. Pugin would have us to suppose, 
 to the design of these features, but only to the manner in which 
 they should be terminated. I prepared the working drawings 
 for them, and perfectly recollect the question in debate at the 
 time, which was, whether each flying buttress should terminate, 
 as at present, with a square crocketted pinnacle, or with a 
 supporter carrying vanes and badges, like the lions on the two 
 pedestals at the entrance of the Victoria Tower. Both designs 
 were tried on the model of the tower by Mr. Mabey, and 
 when the selection was made, I sponged out from the draw- 
 ing of the tower the animal terminals, and inserted the pin- 
 nacles. With the relations then existing between Mr. Pugin 
 and my father, it was natural that Sir Charles should mention 
 to him, as he did to my knowledge to other friends, the question 
 he was then solving, and his letter does no more than this. 
 When Sir Charles wrote his. letter he asked iSIr. Pugin for 
 
44 
 
 THE ARCHITECT OF THE 
 
 sketches of the animals. If they were given, a glance at the 
 tower will show that they were never carried out. 
 
 “ II. The panels flanking the galleries between the windows 
 of the Victoria Tower. These features of the tower might well 
 escape attention, as they are in the corners next to the octagon 
 turrets, and Sir Charles’s anxiety about them shows just the 
 reverse of that which Mr. E. Pugin seeks to prove. Nothing, in 
 fact, can demonstrate more conclusively the care and attention 
 Sir Charles bestowed on every insignificant portion of his great 
 work, than his care about these panels, which might have been 
 finished almost in any way, without affecting the design of the 
 tower, and which, in my opinion, might have been left altogether 
 plain with advantage. It happens that I myself made the work- 
 ing drawings for the open galleries of the Victoria Tower, and 
 the first idea for the panels in question was a shield and sceptre 
 on a background of foliage. This was modelled and carved by 
 Thomas as it now exists. Sir Charles, in his letter to Pugin, 
 speaks of crowned shields and supporters, and possibly Pugin 
 may have made a sketch of them as requested ; however that 
 may be, they were never so executed, but Sir Charles’s original 
 idea was carried out. 
 
 “ III.. The Clock Tower and new front in Old Palace Yard. 
 The letter of 23 Feb. 1852 says, ‘ I am much pressed respecting 
 ‘ the Clock Tower and the new front in Old Palace Yard, as the 
 ‘ building is at a stand, in respect of these portions of it, for 
 ‘ working drawings. I cannot bear that you should be bothered 
 ‘ on the subject.’ Mr. E. Pugin twice describes this as an appli- 
 cation to his father for working drawings for \the completion of*~\ 
 the Clock Tower, omitting the context. I would ask any candid 
 person if confidential letters so treated cannot be made to prove 
 anything. 
 
 “ The fact is, as I believe. Sir Charles’s letter does not refer to 
 the Clock Tower at all, but to the Clock Tower and front in Old 
 Palace Yard. The great Clock Tower was not finished till 1857, 
 and Sir Charles could not therefore have represented it in 1852 
 as waiting for drawings for its completion. On the other hand Sir 
 Charles was, as I remember, designing at this time the Old Palace 
 Yard front, and, in his Diary of February, 1852, 1 find a reference 
 of his being engaged on ‘ the clock and tower in Old Palace Yard' 
 
 “ The central feature of this front was always intended by 
 
 * These words, though italicised by Mr. E. Pugin, as if quoted from Sir 
 Cliarles’s letter, do not appear therein. 
 
NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTEIL 
 
 45 
 
 Sir Charles to be a clock tower, as he found that the great clock 
 could not be seen from this portion of the Palace. At the time 
 the letter was written, Sir Charles intended to have carried up 
 the centre rather higher, so as to be more of a tower than it is 
 at present, but it now displays the face for the clock which he 
 intended to place in it. Mr. Pugin may, under his arrangement 
 with the contractors, have had something to do with the tiles, 
 stained glass, and metal-work, of this part, as of other portions 
 of the Palace, though from the dates hereafter given, tliis is 
 scarcely possible ; but with the design of the building he had 
 nothing whatever to do. All the working draAvings for it, 
 from the foundations to the roof, were prepared in the office 
 by myself and under my directions. I saw my father make 
 the original sketches, from which we worked, and discussed, 
 from time to time, every feature with him. I particularly 
 remember suggesting the advancement of 7 or 9 bays in the 
 centre, with a cloister over the footway. PTe sketched out 
 this and other designs, but his rooted dislike to advanced 
 centres resumed its sway, and he retained the j)resent straight 
 front, only consenting so to recess the alternate bays, as to get 
 more light and shade than he originally contemplated. The 
 heraldic and carved details were, in all cases, modelled and 
 carved by Mr. Thomas from Sir Charles’s designs. 
 
 “ A few dates will make this clear. Mr. Pugin Avas seized 
 by his sad malady prior to 1852, and the melancholy necessity 
 arose of placing him under restraint on the 25th I^eb., 1852. 
 My father’s studies for the Old Palace Yard Ihoiit, ivMch I saw 
 Mm make, and wMcJi I now possess, are dated March, 1852. The 
 details were all got out by myself and others in the office ; 
 and are thus dated — ‘Basement, May, 1852; Ground Floor, 
 ‘Dec. 1852; Principal Floor, April, 1853 ;’ and so on. As Mr. 
 E. Pugin is anxious that I should give him dates, I haA^e much 
 pleasure in doing so. 
 
 “ Having noAV dealt with my father’s letters published by Mr. 
 E. W. Pugin, I proceed to comment on a statement of his own 
 that he saw his father make the design for the present false 
 ceiling of the House of Commons. It happens that I possess this 
 design, which is in pencil and drawn from first to last by my 
 father. The drawing contains a plan and sections of the upper 
 part of the House of Commons to a scale of 4 feet to an inch, 
 with elevations of the end and side completely filled in. There 
 are also sections of all the mouldings one quarter full-size. Full 
 directions for every part of the Avork are written on the draAving 
 
40 
 
 THE AKCHITECT OF THE 
 
 in my father’s handwriting. I well remember his doing it, and 
 his taking it to Thames Bank, and as it is fortunately in pencil, 
 his touch can be recognised at once. I perfectly recollect the 
 circumstances under which it was made, and my father explain- 
 ing to me an ingenious arrangement he proposed for obtaining 
 a large amount of sectional area for the ventilating apertures. 
 This arrangement, which has been carried out, consisted of fixing 
 the panels to double ceiling joists, several inches apart, and 
 lowering the ribs below the face of the panels by means of 
 blocks corresponding with the carved bosses. The vitiated air 
 passed through the aperture thus formed behind the ribs and 
 between the ceiling joists. The drawing was not inked-in 
 because of pressure of time, but it was given to me, and its 
 details were worked out by me and others in the office, and are 
 shown on our drawings for the alteration of the House of Com- 
 mons, dated Sept., Oct., and Nov. 1850. 
 
 “ It is only as a specimen of Mr. E. Pugin’s inaccuracy that this 
 circumstance is worth referring to, for there can be little honour 
 to be gained from the design of this unsightly mutilation of my 
 father’s work, which he always considered had been forced on 
 him with unnecessary precipitation, and ever regarded with 
 intense dissatisfaction. 
 
 “ I will now supply Mr. E. Pugin with some more dates. The 
 Clock Tower was not finished, as I have before said, until 1857 ; 
 the Central Tower in 1855; and the Victoria Tower was unfinished 
 when my father died, in I860. Mr. E. W. Pugin represents Sir 
 Charles to be seeking fi om his father drawings for ‘ the comple- 
 ‘ tion of the Clock Tower ’ in 1852, five years before such drawings 
 were needed. Assuming for the sake of argument that such 
 drawings were asked for and given (which they were not), the 
 tower as it is now executed cannot, even on that supposition, be 
 the tower which Mr. Pugin designed. Between 1852 and 1857, 
 my father designed the tower over and over again ; his designs 
 were modelled by Mr. Mabey, and again and again laid aside. 
 In his Diaries I find repeatedly such entries as — 
 
 1852. Oct. 22. — On studies of Clock and Central Towers for models. 
 
 1858. Feb. 7.- — On details of Victoria and Clock Towers. 
 
 , , April 30. — On working drawings of Clock Tower. Gave orders for 
 model. 
 
 , , Aug. 22. — On details of design for Clock Tower. Instructing Mabey 
 as to model. 
 
 , , Sept. 10. — On modification of design for Clock Tower, giving orders 
 
 for mode], and to Thomas as to statues. 
 
NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTER, 
 
 47 
 
 1853. Sept. 16. — Giving orders to Quarrii for modifying design for Clock 
 
 Tower, and orders to Mabey accordingly. 
 
 1854. Jan. 7. — At working drawings of Clock Tower. 
 
 , , April 11. — On sketches for roof of Clock Tower. 
 
 ,, Dec. 11.— Correcting working drawings for top of Central Tower. Gave 
 Quarm design for top for modelling. 
 
 1855. Feb. 5. — Making drawing for varying top of Clock Tower. 
 
 , , Sept. 26. — On design for dormers of Clock Tower. 
 
 , , Sept. 27.— On design for dial for Clock Tower. 
 
 , , Nov. 27. — On design for top of Victoria Tower, &c., &c., &c. 
 
 These selections are made from liimdreds of similar entries 
 from 1836 to 1860, and prove the time and infinite study which 
 my father gave to every detail of his work. Yet this is the 
 man whom Mr. E. Pugin wishes to hand down to posterity as 
 obtaining designs from another architect, surreptitiously copying 
 them, and then going forth to the world in borrowed plumes. 
 During all the years I have named I was not only his professional 
 representative, but 1 lived at home both then and previously, 
 and knew all he did, working late and early, the first in the 
 house to rise, the last to go to bed. I now possess many of the 
 designs referred to in the above extracts. They differ widely 
 from each other, and are without an exception drawn by Sir 
 Charles himself, in many cases in pencil in his usual beautiful 
 style. He was incessantly engaged upon them, and never left a 
 new idea untried, so that at no time during the years that 
 elapsed between Mr. Pugin’s death and the completion of the 
 tower could I have confidently predicted the appearance it 
 would ultimately assume. The same remarks would apply to 
 the other towers, and all other parts of the building. My father 
 not only designed but drew out himself in detail the whole of 
 the ornamental iron- work on the top of the Clock Tower, and I 
 have his working drawing which is very large, to the scale of one 
 inch to the foot, with every detail correctly shown upon it. I 
 recollect Mr. Powell’s coming from Messrs. Hardman, and taking 
 orders direct from my father for all this work. I have spoken of 
 my own knowledge of all that took place in his office after 1850. 
 As regards the preceding period I must rely on other evidence, 
 but it would require extraordinary testimony to convince me 
 that my father was at one time a willing copyist and slavish 
 adopter of other men’s ideas, and at another the most earnest, 
 painstaking, and fastidious designer I have ever known, requii'- 
 ing, as Mr. Pugin himself tells us, to see before he was satisfied 
 ten ways of doing the same thing. 
 
48 
 
 THE ARCHITECT OF THE 
 
 “ I Rave avoided saying anything on the other questions raised 
 by Mr. E. Pugin, which refer to a period beyond his own and my 
 personal experience, and I will not follow his example of press- 
 ing hearsay evidence into the question.^ I have spoken of that 
 which I know, and, if further evidence be needed, I can refer to 
 the following gentlemen, who can corroborate my statements — 
 Mr. Meeson, Mr. Kerr, Mr. Deville, Mr. Pressland, Mr. P. G. Smith, 
 my father’s assistants in his office with me ; Mr. Quarm and JMr. 
 Ruddle, the clerks of works ; Mr. Mabey the modeller, and others. 
 
 “ I wish to add one word, in conclusion, as to the work that 
 was really done by Pugin, and the advantages to the building 
 derived from his great talent. I have been most reluctantly 
 drawn into this controversy by Mr. E. Pugin, not because 
 I fear to meet his assertions, but because it is difficult to do so 
 without conveying an erroneous impression to outsiders, that in 
 defining what his father really did, I seek in any way to 
 depreciate his services. This I have never done and never will 
 do. I have always thought that Pugin has received less than 
 his due as a pioneer in the revival of Gothic architecture ; and, 
 although some works of to-day may seem to many superior to 
 the best works of Pugin, it should never be forgotten that 
 Pugin’s genius, energy and zeal have helped to make them 
 possible. His knowledge of Gothic detail was greater than 
 my father’s, and he thus became foremost of all in assisting him 
 with his great work in his own special department. It is, 
 however, no disparagement of Pugin’s genius to say that the 
 work as a whole was beyond his grasp, and differs in every 
 particular from what would have been expected from him. 
 
 * As a specimen of Mr. E. Pugin’s mode of controversv, I mny refer lo p. 34 
 of his pamphlet, where, after liaving isolated an expression of mine from its 
 context, from my previous explanations, and the subsequent correspondence, he 
 thinks it not unbecoming to accuse me of saying what is “ positively false,” 
 and (in a further issue) “ wilfully untrue.” Again, in the Appendix, he states 
 that he believes we still possess and detain letters which we have assured him 
 we have never seen or heard of. Controversy under such circumstances is 
 impossible ; and I can only leave the question of the credit due to our 
 respective statements to the decision of those who know us both. Mr. E. Pugin 
 further says of himself, p. 32 1 began working in my fatl.er's office whcji 
 “ I was but seven years old, and I have a distinct recollection of seeing and 
 “ being engaged on designs for the Houses of Parliament from 1844 ” He has 
 certainly the advantage of me in the earliiiess of his reminiscences, and of his 
 hitherto unknown services, for he must liave been about ten years old in 1844. 
 His statement, iiowever, is directly contradicted by Mr. Talbot Bury, p. 90. 
 
NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTER, 
 
 49 
 
 Pugin fully recognised this, and says in one of his letters 
 (quoted hereafter), ‘ I can do you no service except in absolute 
 ‘ detail' and however Mr. E. Pugin may take exception to his 
 father’s words, they are perfectly true. But, within the limits 
 traced out by himself and explained in his letters now published, 
 Pugin’s help was invaluable. His fancy, fertility of jtcncil, 
 and treasure of precedents were inexhaustible and freely drawn 
 upon. Any competent architect can go through the Palace, and 
 see at a glance where Pugin’s hand is visible, and, though I 
 must altogether reject Mr. E. Pugin’s unauthorised claim that 
 his father was in any sense of the Avord arcliitect of tlie 
 Westminster Palace, I must cheerfully admit tliat tlic woi’k 
 owes much to his genius, and shall always consider tlie con- 
 nection between my father and Pugin equally lionourablc to both 
 and advantageous to the public. u Yours &c 
 
 “Edavahd M. Baury.” 
 
 The subjoined letter is simply confirmatory of the above, 
 though written previously : 
 
 ’■‘'New Wimbledon Boad, Merton, S., Jan. Gtli, 18G8. 
 
 “Dear Sir, — I see in the pamphlet recently issued by Mr. 
 Pugin a portion of a letter by the late Sir Charles Barry 
 (numbered 35, and dated Feb. 23rd, 1852), Avhich aiipears 
 intended to give the impression to a casual reader that Sir 
 Charles was dependent upon Mr. Pugin for the design and 
 working drawings of the front in Old Palace Yard as well as 
 for some portion of the Clock Tower. 
 
 “ Such an impression would be entirely erroneous, I was in 
 Sir Charles Barry’s office in 1852 and following years, and Avith 
 others there, under Mr. Edward Barry’s guidance ; and, Avith 
 constant reference to Sir Charles in person, I assisted in pre- 
 paring most of the general drawings, and the Avhole of the 
 details for the front in Old Palace Yard, and this Avas done 
 solely from sketches and details by Sir Charles Barry’s OAvn 
 hand. I was equally engaged on the upper half of the stone- 
 work of the Clock Tower and its roof, yet I did not, either at 
 the commencement or during the progress of these Avorks see a 
 single sketch or detail from Mr. Pugin’s pencil, save for stained 
 glass or ornamental metal finishings. 
 
 “ It is clear to myself therefore that the letter No. 35, simply 
 owns in Mr. Pugin a valued assistant, but nothing more. 
 
 “ I am, dear Sir, yours truly, 
 
 “ Bev. A. Barry, D.D." “ Edward C. Pressla.vd. 
 
50 
 
 THE ARCHITECT OF THE 
 
 I add also a letter from Mr. Bayne, respecting the roof of 
 the House of Commons made under his direction at the 
 Thames Bank workshops. 
 
 “ 16a, Great Smith Street, Westminster, January 20th, 1868. 
 
 “ Sir, — I remember Sir Charles Barry bringing to me at 
 Thames Bank the pencil drawing of the false ceiling of the 
 House of Commons. I suggested several practical modes of con- 
 structing the ribs, and Sir Charles and I settled all the details 
 together. Mr. Pugin had nothing whatever to do with it, and I 
 believe never saw it, except as regards the pendants, upon the 
 details of which Sir Charles consulted him ; the design of the 
 pendants is, however, clearly shown on Sir Charles’s own 
 drawing. “ I am. Sir, yours truly, 
 
 “ E. M. Barry, Esq.^’ “ Ed. Bayne. 
 
 I think that these communications will dispose of these 
 last quotations and statements of Mr. E. W. Pugin. 
 
 I have been forced to examine all these letters in what may 
 seem wearisome detail, because they are absolutely the only 
 evidence deserving the name, which Mr. E. W. Pugin gives to 
 support the latter part of his charge. 
 
 I am not therefore surprised that, feeling how entirely the 
 letters here quoted (39 out of, as I learn from his solicitors, 
 a much larger number) fail to prove his point, he is forced 
 to lay great stress on certain letters, which he states that 
 he lent to Sir C. Barry in 1852, under a promise to return 
 them, which was never kept. Of this subject a full ex- 
 amination may be found in the Appendix. All I am con- 
 cerned to notice here is this — that, supposing all Mr. E. W. 
 Pugin’s statement accurate, it has at best a secondary force. 
 Inferences as to what those letters may have contained 
 cannot stand for a moment against the positive testimony, 
 which it will be my duty to bring forward. 
 
 (I.) First and foremost comes Mr. A. W. Pugin’s own 
 letter of 1845, to which reference has so often been made. 
 
 “ Sir, — As it appears by an article in the last number of the 
 ‘ Builder,’ as well as in notices contained of late in other pe- 
 riodicals, that a misconception prevails as to the nature of my 
 
NEW PALACE AT WESTMINS'I’EIL 
 
 M 
 
 employment in the works of the New Palace at Westminster, 1 
 think it incumhent on me, in justice to Mr. Barry, io state that 
 I am engaged hy him, and hy him alone, with the ap])roval of 
 the Government, to assist in preparing working drawings juid 
 models from his designs of all the wood-carvings and oilier 
 details of the internal decorations, and to jirocurc models and 
 drawings of the best examples of ancient decorative art of the 
 proper kind, wherever they are to be found, as specimens foi* 
 the guidance of the workmen in respect of the taste and feeling 
 to be imitated; to engage with artists and the most skilful 
 workmen that can be procured in every branch of dccoi-ativc 
 art; and to superintend personally the practical execution of tlic 
 works upon the most economical terms, compatible with tlie 
 nature of it and its most perfect performance. In fulfilling the 
 duties of my office, I do not do anything whatever on my own 
 responsibility; all models and working drawings being pre- 
 pared from Mr. Barry’s designs, and submitted to him for his 
 approval or alteration, previous to their being carried into 
 effect ; in fine, my occupation is simply to assist in carrying out 
 practically Mr. Barry’s own designs and views in all respects. 
 Trusting to your fairness in giving insertion to this letter in 
 
 your next number, ^ o- o 
 
 “ i am, bir, &c., 
 
 “ London, Sept. 3rd, 1845.” Wkldy Pugin. 
 
 To this letter Mr. E. W. Pugin has devoted some pages of 
 elaborate pleading. But it cannot be explained away : even 
 if it stood alone, no ingenuity could evade its plain meaning. 
 It originated in Mr. Pugin’s own suggestion, as will be clearly 
 seen below ; it was drawn up, after consultation with his friend 
 Mr. Talbot Bury, and subsequent reference to Mr. Barry and 
 Mr. Wolfe, in order to put a stop, once for all, to certain 
 rumours, attributing to Mr. Pugin more than his proper share 
 in the actual work of the New Palace. Mr. E. W. Pngin has 
 remarked that it makes no reference to the authorship of the 
 competition designs. Of course, it does not : for no question 
 had ever been raised upon that subject. Ten years had 
 elapsed since these drawings were made, and no one had ever 
 dreamt of referring to them any other hand than ]\rr. Barry’s. 
 But on the engagement of Mr. Pugin upon the actual work. 
 
 E '1 
 
52 
 
 THE ARCHITECT OF THE 
 
 it was inevitable (as I have said elsewhere) that rumours 
 should arise, exaggerating the amount of his service and 
 influence. My father deliberately risked this danger, for 
 the value of help which he thought highly beneficial to the 
 public service, knowing that Mr. A. W. Pugin would not 
 arrogate to himself any undue credit, and never supposing 
 that any of his representatives would do what he would have 
 scorned even to think of. It is perfectly futile to endeavour to 
 explain it away, as “ written under pressure ” and “ to save 
 “ Sir C. Barry’s reputation.”"^ It is a reflection on Mr. A. W. 
 Pugin’s character to suppose that he would publicly tell a 
 falsehood, because previous fraudulent arrangements required 
 it. It is strange that his son should think that he thus 
 honours his name ; and equally strange that lie should not 
 already have seen, that this denial does not stand alone, but 
 is only one of many denials on his part testified to by un- 
 exceptionable witnesses. 
 
 But I am able now to say that it does not stand alone, 
 even among written documents. In searching for the letters 
 above referred to on the demand of Mr. E. W. Pugin, my 
 father’s executors have discovered a few letters of ^Ir. A. W. 
 Pugin’s, of the existence of which we were unaware.f They 
 are private letters, written confidentially, where no pressure 
 could be used, and no conventional saving of appearances 
 demanded. I think the quotation of a few of these will set 
 the question at rest for ever : — 
 
 * This has been done, on the authority of a Mrs. Mares, in the ‘ Times ’ of 
 Sept. 15th ; and Mr. E. W. Pugin is very angry because I claimed that “ her 
 “ antecedents be examined and her credibility be tested by cross -examina- 
 “ tion,” — to which (I added) “ we are perfectly willing to submit our own 
 “ evidence.” He chooses to infer that this is a “reflection on her character.” 
 But this inference, like some others, is perfectly unwarrantable. Mrs. Mares 
 does not specify her claims to be considered as an authority, nor has Mr. 
 E. W. Pugin supplied the omission. Her evidence is flatly contradicted by 
 Mr. Talbot Bury (see pp. 96, 97) ; it is irreconcilable with Mr. A. Pugin’s 
 own letters. What other course, except the one which I suggested, can be 
 followed, if we would establish the truth ? 
 
 f Notice of this discovery was instantly given to Mr. E. W. Pugin ; oppor- 
 tunity of verifying the letters offered ; and copies promised, if he, on his part, 
 would give us copies of all letters of Sir C. Barry's in his possession. The 
 offer was curtly refused. 
 
NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTER. 
 
 53 
 
 [Endorsed by Sir C. B., 16tli June, 1841.] 
 
 (ct) “ Nottingham, Thursdaif. 
 
 “ My dear Mr. Barry, — On Saturday last 1 was suddenly seized 
 with an attaek of English eholera, wliieli has prostrated me, and 
 I can hardly hold myself up at all. I am getting better now, 
 that is, the actual complaint is stopped, but I never was more 
 pulled down. I got j^our letter at Nottingham. / am sure I can 
 never do you real service except in absolute detail ; you should fully 
 make up your mind as to every arrangement and then turn the small 
 work over to me. It is next to impossible for me to design any 
 abstract portion of a great whole in the same spirit as you have 
 conceived the rest, and I know it is only a waste of time in mo 
 to attempt it. As to the bratishing above panelling, 1 could 
 make fifty patterns, and same for pendants, Ac., which sliould 
 mostly consist of figures. The stalls at Amiens would furnish 
 an infinite variety for the position of figures in ])cndants, hold- 
 ing scrolls, Ac., and these can only be done at l.ouvain by the 
 Flemings, the same men who executed the stalls at Antwerp. 
 I can do you far more service by adopting the best examples 
 and getting them carried out in execution than by making a 
 lot of drawings which could never be worked from. Uemember, 
 I never made a drawing which was of any real use to you yet, and it 
 is a dreadful loss of time to me, incessantl}" occupied as 1 am with 
 Church work, to attempt it ; as I said hefoi'e, 1 can do you no good 
 except in actual detail, and in that more hy ferreting out the fine things 
 that exist than composing new ones. I expect to be in town by 
 Tuesday, and will come over to you immediately, that is, if I am 
 strong enough to travel. « Ever 3^011 rs most sincerely, 
 
 “A. AVki.by Pugin. 
 
 “You must go to Antwerp and Louvain this year. If }^ou 
 wished it particularty, I might manage to go with you, as I 
 know the men.” 
 
 I make no comment on this letter, except to call attention 
 to the passages which I have italicized, and to ask any reader 
 whether such passages could have been written if a tithe of 
 Mr. E. W. Pugin’s assertions Avere correct. 
 
 (h) The next letter is written in 1845 ; the first few sen- 
 tences alone are important, because they refer to a main 
 principle of the design as emphatically Mr. Barry’s own, 
 and as one against which the writer had protested as a 
 matter of theory : — 
 
THE AllCHlTECT OF THE 
 
 ;)4 
 
 [Postmark 5 Aug., 1845.] 
 
 “ Basel, August 1. 
 
 “ There is nothing I have seen to compare to Basel, except 
 Knremhurg. Lots of fine iron work — such clocks in leaden 
 turrets ! Do not you envy me ? 
 
 “My dear Mr. Barry, — have arrh^ed safe at Basel, and 
 begin to return on Saturday. I have seen a great deal in a 
 little time, and much that will be applicable to the great work. 
 After all there will be nothing like it, for the largest of the old 
 works are small in comparison, and not half so well carried out ; 
 and I must own that I think you are right in the principle of repetition of 
 hays. All the great town-halls are certainly so, and I have paid 
 particular attention to this point. You know I never hold out 
 after I am convinced, and now I can advocate it conscientiously. The 
 best modern architecture I have seen is the railway from Mann- 
 heim to Strasbourg. The stations are beautiful — all constructive 
 principle. If the roofs had a higher pitch, they would be almost 
 perfect. I have seen some splendid metal-work in brass and 
 iron, and have taken a fresh supply from the fountain of me- 
 dieval antiquity ; you ought really to be forced away for two 
 weeks to this country, it would do you a world of good, and you 
 would fetch up the actual time afterwards. Eemember life ebbs 
 away, and every year some fine old thing is destroyed. You 
 ought, as a positive duty, come to these countries now and then. 
 I am so up to everything that I could give you such directions 
 that would enable you to see a vast deal even in two weeks. I 
 expect to be back about the 19th of this month, and I shall 
 come direct to you. I left them plenty of work at Thames 
 Bank well explained, so I think they will get on well till 
 I return. If you decide on the upper tracery panels it will 
 make a deal of work both for joiners and carvers. I thought you 
 would be glad to know where I was, and therefore I have sent 
 you these few lines, and I only wish I could persuade you to 
 follow my example. There is a great deal of fine old heraldry 
 about the buildings in Basel and in Alsace. I see so much that 
 I did not know of at all, that it really appears as if we know 
 less the longer one studies ; and I suppose, by the time one is 
 very knowing indeed, Ave shall be almost past profiting by the 
 knowledge. « yours most sincerely, 
 
 “ A. Welby Pugin.” 
 
 (c) The third has no date of any kind ; but is evidently 
 
NEW PALACE AT WESTiMlNSTER. 
 
 55 
 
 written at the time of his appointment (at a salary of 200Z. 
 a year) to superintend the wood-carving. As Mr. E. Pugin 
 has represented this appointment as an attempt to secure 
 independence against Mr. Barry, it is important to observe 
 how entirely he considered himself not as indei)endeiit of the 
 architect, but responsible to him and to him alone. (I may 
 add that the salary and other payments much more consider- 
 able, generally passed through my father’s hands) : — 
 
 “ Saturday (^Post-mark Amiens). 
 
 “My dear Mr. Barry, — 1. By to-morrow, Monday’s, night 
 coach, I will send you all the detail drawings in pencil for the 
 three rooms you give me : general portions I'l scale, details real 
 size. I hope they will be what you wish. 
 
 “ 2. You will find a rough pattern crown in London to offer 
 up for the west front ; it was delivered to Mr. Groves, the clerk 
 of works. 
 
 “ 3. I want another order like the last to send off with another 
 man to squeeze. 
 
 “ 4. I purpose coming to London next week and see after the 
 carvers. 
 
 “ 5. 1 gave Wailes a good blowing up for his heavy glass and 
 bad greens, and he has offered to finish another specimen on 
 a different principle at his own cost, to which I have agreed. 
 It will be well to think of some ’of the square badges for the 
 river front windows. 
 
 “ As we have now begun in good earnest with the work., I wish to 
 state exactly my views on the subject to prevent any misunderstanding. 
 First, for the 200Z. a year, I agree to furnish drawings and in- 
 structions for all the carved ornaments in wood that may be 
 required. Secondly, that all travelling expenses whatever con- 
 nected with the above work are to be paid extra to that sum. 
 My residence being at Eamsgate, my journeys to London must 
 be considered as travelling expenses, and paid accordingly, 
 unless I am compelled to take the journey for other purposes 
 not connected with the work. Thirdly, I am empowered to 
 send persons to collect squeezes, &c., and all expenses connected 
 with that object, or the purchase of original models, to he paid 
 from time to time according to the accounts I will furnish you, 
 and all journeys which I make for the purpose of finding out 
 proper models. Fourthly, all drawings for glass, metal works, 
 and tiles, &c., will be paid for in the estimates of the same, 
 
56 
 
 TPIE AECHITECT OF THE 
 
 according to the rates we agreed. Fifthly, you must include 
 the expense of preparing these detail drawings in the estimate 
 of the fittings, and I will furnish you with the cost of them as 
 you may require. Sixthly, I am only responsible to you in all 
 matters connected with the work. I act as your agent entirely, and 
 have nothing to do with any other person. 
 
 “ I mention these things that we may have a perfect under- 
 standing at starting, for it is a great work and will occupy the 
 greater part of my time. There will he upwards of 1000 detail 
 drawings of ornaments for the carvers in the House of Lords 
 alone ; hut I need not speak of these matters to you, who know 
 as well as I do what is required, only I mean to devote all my 
 energy to the business, and, of course, it must answer my pur- 
 pose. I have increased my shop at Ramsgate, so that I shall he 
 ahle to have all the figures and difficult parts modelled under 
 my own eye ; this will cost me about 200/., hut I don’t mind 
 expense and trouble if we can obtain a good result. 
 
 “ I expect the railing will he in London by the time I come 
 up, so that a compartment may he tried. 
 
 “ You will see in the drawings of Peers’ Conference Room I 
 have indicated stencilling in the panels of ceiling. I think 
 you should introduce this, it is so easy and cheap, and yet so 
 effective for inscriptions, &c. “ Ever yours, most sincerely, 
 
 “ Welby Pugin.” 
 
 (c?) The fourth and fifth letters are the most decisive of 
 all. The former is undated (except ^‘Saturday”); tlie latter, 
 evidently following it, has postmark “Kamsgate, June I2th, 
 “ 1845 ” (Thursday). They most effectually dispose of tlie 
 extraordinary theory, set up in order to explain away Mr. 
 A. W. Pugin’s published letter of 1 845 : — 
 
 “ Morning Steamer, Saturday. 
 
 “ My deak Mr. Barry, — Since I saw you last night, I have 
 been informed that some most exaggerated statements respect- 
 ing the nature of my employment at the Palace of Westminster 
 have appeared in one of the papers. I need not tell you how 
 distressed and annoyed I feel at it, for I have always been most 
 careful to prevent any misconception on this head. I have 
 most distinctly stated that I was engaged by you and for you * to 
 carry out into practical execution the minor details of the deco- 
 
 * The italics here are in the original. 
 
NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTER. 
 
 57 
 
 rations according to yonr designs, that I did nothing whatever 
 on my own responsibility, that everything ivas submitted to be approved 
 or altered by you; that in fine, my occupation was simply to carry 
 our your views in the practical execution of the internal detail. 
 I can assure you, I wish to serve you in this work with tlio 
 greatest fidelity ; no one can better appreciate your skill and 
 judgment than myself, and no man has ever borne more sincere 
 and willing testimony to them than myself. Now, if you think 
 right, I will make a formal denial of these statements to put an 
 end to all nonsense. I have not seen the article, but Mr. ( 'race 
 told me that one of your clerks had mentioned it to him ; it 
 will therefore be easy to know when and where it appeared, 
 and I really think it would be as well to state the real state of 
 the case. I will send you my contradiction for your approval. 
 I am sure you know me too well to imagine that such state- 
 ments would give me anything but great pain and annoyance ; 
 but I should like at once to disabuse the public, and let tliem 
 know the true nature of my employment at the Palace. I’ray 
 let me hear from you about this. 
 
 “ I sent yesterday a whole cart-load of casts from Thames 
 Bank to the works at Westminster. I hoj^e all these will bo 
 taken great care of, that they may be united in one great col- 
 lection when they are done with, and they may form the com- 
 mencement of a great national gallery of Art. 
 
 “ Ever yours, most sincerely, 
 
 “ Welby Pugin. 
 
 “ I see in the ‘ Times ’ this morning that Eeid and Barry (M !) 
 came in for their share of blame in the Lords.” 
 
 [Postmai'k of Bamsgate, June 12th, 1845.] 
 
 “ Mt dear Mr. Barry, — 1. I enclose you what I think will be 
 a sufficient contradiction, and being short and simply worded is 
 more likely to answer its object. 
 
 “ 2. I have at last succeeded to my entire satisfaction in the 
 enamel colouring of the armorial plates ; the enamel is now 
 sunk below the surface in hollows, and the effect is very rich 
 and good. You will soon have a perfect panel up. I think 
 we shall do this time. 
 
 “ 3. I have found some unforeseen difficulties in setting out 
 the full-sized drawings of the tiles according to your alteration. 
 
58 
 
 THE ARCHITECT OF THE 
 
 The double squares come in very badly when reduced to the 
 stern reality of square, and the inscription letters, now they are 
 enlarged, won’t come in at all. I will send you all my diffi- 
 culties set out. I wish Lord Brougham had to set it out 
 himself. I expect I shall hear about the stained windows 
 to-morrow. “ Ever yours, most sincerely, 
 
 “ Welby Pugin. 
 
 “ The ‘ Builder ’ has now a rather extended circulation, and 
 amongst that class of people whom we would not wish to be 
 wrongly informed on the subject. But I leave the matter en- 
 tirely in your hands. 
 
 “ There are now ten additional carvers at Thames Bank, all 
 on the ceiling. Do you approve of the panels I last sent you ? ” 
 
 [Enclosure.] 
 
 “ Sir, — My attention having been drawn to an erroneous 
 paragraph, which appeared in your journal, relative to the 
 nature of my employment at the New Palace at W estminster, 
 I take an early opportunity of stating that I am not engaged 
 in any work connected with that building on my own respon- 
 sibility, but am simply superintending the practical execution 
 of the internal details and decorations of Mr. Barry’s design. 
 Nothing is done without his entire knowledge and approbation, 
 nor is anything put into execution that has not been previ- 
 ously arranged and designed by himself. 
 
 “ I remain, Sir, your obedient servant. 
 
 To the Editor of .” “Welby Pugin. 
 
 It will be seen, by the first letter, that the notion of denial 
 arose in Mr. Pugin’s own mind, without any communication 
 with Mr. Barry ; that he himself suggested taking some public 
 steps, and offered to send for approval a formal contradiction. 
 It will be seen, by the second letter, that Mr. A. W. Pugin 
 actually does (what Mr. E. W. Pugin suggests that he would 
 have done, were our statements true) “ write himself a plain 
 “ straight-forward letter, absolutely denying the truth of the 
 “ report.” I presume that my father did not at this time accept 
 the offer so unhesitatingly made. Subsequently on a revival of 
 the report, the letter of Sept. 6th, 1845 was written — differing 
 from Mr. A. W. Pugin’s own proposed form, only in stating 
 
NEAV PALACE AT WESTMINSTEIL 
 
 59 
 
 more emphatically what Mr. Pugin did actually do, and being 
 certainly less trenchant and emphatic. I do not know whether 
 any impartial person ever has accepted ]Mr. E. W. Pugin’s 
 theory as to the letter ; but, if so, his acceptance will hardly 
 survive the comparison of the private and public documents. 
 These last quotations will (I think) be sufficient to show how 
 entirely consistent Mr. A. W. Pugin was in his descri})tion 
 of his actual work at the New Palace. I may add that the 
 letters generally are those of a confidential and important 
 subordinate. 
 
 These letters, being private communications, I ])rint re- 
 luctantly, because the publication of my father’s letters has 
 made it absolutely necessary to do so. They are sufficient 
 in themselves to demolish IMr. E. W. Pugin’s elaborate fabric. 
 When Mr. A. W. Pugin, in letters private and confidential, 
 declares that he “can do no service except in absolute detail,” 
 and that “ he never yet made a drawing which was of real 
 “ use,” that Mr. Barry “ must make up his mind to every 
 “ arrangement,” and that he “ acts as Mr. Barry’s agent,” 
 “doing nothing on his own responsibility” — when he volun- 
 tarily offers to publish the statement that “ his employment 
 “ at the New Palace,” is “ simply superintending the practical 
 “ execution of the internal details and decoration of ]\[r. 
 “ Barry’s design ” — it is an insult to common sense to assert 
 that he was the real “ Art- Architect ” of the building, and 
 that he and his correspondent were engaged in a fraudulent 
 attempt to conceal the truth. 
 
 ( II.) I hardly know whether any further evidence can be 
 actually requked. But it is necessary to put on record, once 
 for all, the testimony of men intimately acquainted with 
 every portion of the work really done. I subjoin accordingly, 
 first, a statement from Mr. Wolfe, corresponding to that 
 made by him under the former head ; and another from my 
 brother, Mr. Charles Barry, wPo was then acting as my 
 father’s assistant. These will give the testimony of those 
 who saw my father’s own private work. I add next a scuies 
 
60 
 
 THE ARCHITECT OF THE 
 
 of letters from those who saw the same work, both in course 
 of preparation in the office, and in its actual execution. 
 These letters are from the following gentlemen, all of whom 
 were my father’s assistants, many of whom are now architects 
 of extensive j^ractice and high reputation : — Mr. E. E. Banks, 
 Mr. John Gibson, Mr. G. S. Clarke, Mr. Brakspear, Mr. 
 Kennedy, Mr. Wright, and Mr. F. H. Groves ; from Mr. 
 Grissell. Sir M. Peto, and Mr. Field, the contractors for the 
 work of the buildings ; from Mr. Quarm, for many years 
 chief clerk of the works ; from Mr. Bayne, the superin- 
 tendent of the Government Works at Thames Bank, and 
 from Mr. Philip and Mr. Clayton, who were connected with 
 the detailed work carried out there ; from Mr. Mabey, who 
 modelled over and over again every important part of the 
 building, and from Mr. Garland, who made out the full-sized 
 models for the carvers. 
 
 It will be obvious, from a mere inspection of this list, that 
 the writers are men, whose names are a sufficient guarantee 
 for the truth and the accuracy of their statements. It is 
 impossible that such a transaction as that which Mr. E. Pugin 
 imagines could have taken j)lace without their knowledge, 
 and I do not think that he will venture to question the 
 truthfulness of their evidence. 
 
 Pakt II. 
 
 “No sooner was Barry appointed architect of the Houses of 
 Parliament than, important alterations having been resolved 
 on, he had entirely to remodel his original design. In archi- 
 tectural features, this second design was not essentially dif- 
 ferent from the first ; and, like the first, it was, to my know- 
 ledge, made by Barry himself without assistance from Pugin. 
 
 “ But as careful estimates were about to be prepared, Pugin 
 was engaged to make drawings of details (some of which I 
 recently saw) on a scale necessary for the information of the 
 surveyors. 
 
 “ In making this second set of details, Pugin had not only 
 Barry’s own drawings and directions to assist him, but all the 
 main lines of his work were set out for him. In a bay of the 
 
NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTER. 
 
 (I I 
 
 river front, for instance, he had the height and width of the 
 bay, the level of the cornice, string courses and other hori- 
 zontal lines, and the position, size, and general design of the 
 windows. Thus he had nothing to do but to draw his outlines 
 from these data and then fill in the detail of mouldings and 
 tracery ; and, where required, the heraldic and other details 
 merely ornamental. 
 
 “ The estimates were finally completed, I think, in 1837, and 
 up to that time Pugin may have been engaged in making 
 explanatory drawings. But whatever work Pugin may have 
 done on this second design, certain it is it shared the fate of 
 his labours on the first. All were swept away by the formation 
 of a third and final design, so different in character from those 
 preceding it that every drawing, even of their details, was 
 rendered useless. Yet this, the design executed, of which I 
 myself witnessed the introduction of every important feature, 
 was made, drawn out, and in progress of executioii, during the 
 very years when, according to Mr. E. W. Pugin’s own state- 
 ment, his father was not in communication with Barry. So 
 that when Pugin resumed his employment under Barry, he had 
 nothing to do but to carry out the works specified in his letter 
 of 1845. Of all his previous labours, not a trace exists in the 
 Houses of Parliament.'^' 
 
 “ Mr. E. W. Pugin has stated that in 1837, his father, being 
 disgusted because the execution of his designs had been en- 
 trusted to Mr. Thomas, became estranged from Barry and 
 refused to work for him till he had received a direct appoint- 
 ment from Government. 
 
 “Now of this estrangement neither have I, nor has. any 
 member of Barry’s family, the slightest recollection, and we do 
 not believe that, at least on Barry’s side, it ever existed. But 
 certainly it could not have been brought about by the cause 
 assigned by Mr. E. W. Pugin ; for not in 1837, nor till some 
 years later, had Barry any drawings by Pugin — applicable to 
 the work in progress — nor did he then regard Thomas as more 
 than a clever stone-carver. 
 
 “ Pugin, for some years, ceased to Avork for Barry — but it 
 
 * Many of the most important alterations in the design were made l)y Barry 
 while he was staying with me in tlie country, in the autumn of 18.38; and for 
 many years afterwards the people of the house we lodged in used to sliow tlicir 
 guests “the very table on wliich Mr. Barry and his friend drew the Parliament 
 “ House.” Other changes were made hy Barry in my own liouse, to whicli 
 he occasionally retired for uninterrupted study. 
 
62 
 
 THE ARCHITECT OF THE 
 
 was for this simple reason, there was no work for him to do ; 
 and it was not till about the time when he received his ap- 
 pointment under Government that his services were again 
 required. It is true that some time after Pugin had been at 
 work, Barry, finding that serious inconvenience and delay 
 were caused by Pugin’s absence and uncertain movements, did 
 give direct instructions to Thomas, who was always on the 
 spot, to proceed with the stone-carving. Pugin may have been 
 annoyed at this, but he continued for a long time afterwards to 
 superintend the other works mentioned in his letter of 1845. 
 
 “ With regard to this letter, I will explain that up to a 
 short time before it was written, Barry had never thought it 
 necessary even to suggest to Pugin a disclaimer of his having 
 had any hand in designing the Houses of Parliament. For he 
 well knew that Pugin himself had never failed to contradict 
 any rumour to that effect (and sometimes, as I knew, in his 
 usual forcible language) whenever and wherever they reached 
 him. But when, in the course of a debate in the House of 
 Lords, a peer happened to speak of Pugin as “joint-architect,” 
 both Pugin and Barry thought it expedient to publish the 
 letter of 1845. 
 
 “ But in drawing up this letter, it never occurred to any of 
 the parties concerned to re-assert Barry’s title, as against 
 Pugin’s, to the authorship of the original design for the Par- 
 liament Houses ; for that title, having been for ten years 
 undisputed, was considered indisputable ; and surely if there 
 had been any tenable ground for disputing it, it could not 
 have escaped the keen eyes of disappointed competitors. But 
 although they did not fail to perceive, and to make the most 
 of, the fact that some of Barry’s drawings had been prepared by 
 Pugin, they never ventured to ascribe the design to him. For 
 in truth, although the hand of Pugin was plainly visible, the 
 most lynx-eyed critic could not detect a trace of his mind.* 
 
 “ Mr. E. W. Pugin, finding that large sums were occasionally 
 paid to his father by Barry, assumes that they must have been 
 paid as the remuneration for services of a more valuable kind 
 than has yet been acknowledged. But the fact is, that all the 
 large sums mentioned by Mr. E. W. Pugin were paid at dates 
 
 * As to an extraordinary statement made by a Mrs. Mares, that, immediately 
 after writing his letter of 1845, Pugin bitterly complained to her that he had 
 been forced to disclaim what was really his due, I can only say that statement 
 is altogether at variance witli the sentiments Pugin just at this time expressed 
 to^ myself and others. 
 
NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTEP. 
 
 OH 
 
 subsequent to his father’s appointment by Government, and 
 were paid for works specified in his letter of 1845, some of 
 which, the purchase of casts, for instance, required a consider- 
 able outlay. The money was entered by the bankers as paid by 
 Barry because, to the best of my recollection, the payments 
 made by Government for Pugin’s services passed through Barry’s 
 hands.* 
 
 * As nrncli stress has been laid on this matter by Mr, E. W. Pugin, I sub- 
 join a copy of the counterfoils of the cheques paid to Mr. A. W. Pugin, from 
 1844-1852 
 
 1844. 
 
 
 £ 
 
 s. 
 
 <l 
 
 Oct. 5th. 
 
 A. W. Pugin, N. H. P 
 
 50 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 1845. 
 
 June 18 th. 
 
 Expenses in Carving Dept. 
 
 223 
 
 13 
 
 0 
 
 Nov. 25 th. 
 
 On account of Cartoons for Stained Glass for ) 
 H. of Lords j 
 
 100 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 1846. 
 
 January. 
 
 Thames Bank. Acet. of A. W. Pugin fori 
 
 146 
 
 c 
 
 0 
 
 
 Carving Expenses ... ... ... / 
 
 
 Feb. 16th. 
 
 Pugin, to his account at London & Westr. Bank, 1 
 
 200 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 
 on acet. of Exps, ... ... ... 1 
 
 May 14 th. 
 
 A. "W. Pugin, Esq. Balance due on acet, ofl 
 
 148 
 
 12 
 
 g 
 
 May 23rd. 
 
 Exps. at Thames Bank to Dec. 25, 1845 / 
 
 N. H. P. A. W, Pugin, Esq. Balance of 1 
 
 
 
 
 Account for Expenses to May 16th last (re- > 
 paid by Office of Works) ) 
 
 135 
 
 10 
 
 0 
 
 
 Aug. 15 th. 
 
 A. W. Pugin, Esq. Half year to July 6 th 
 
 100 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 Nov. 10th. 
 
 ,, On account 
 
 100 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 1847. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Aug. 24th. 
 
 A. W. Pugin, Esq. Cartoons for windows of 1 
 
 50 
 
 0 
 
 n 
 
 H. of Lords j 
 
 
 Oct. 16 th. 
 
 , , On acet. of Stained Glass ... 
 
 50 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 1848. 
 Jan. 14th. 
 
 A. W. Pugin, Esq. On acet. of Cartoons, &c. . . . 
 
 100 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 March 28th 
 
 • ? » » > 5 > 
 
 100 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 April 28th. 
 
 , , Balance for Casts from 1 
 
 104 
 
 n 
 
 n 
 
 Amiens j 
 
 U 
 
 \J 
 
 June 9th. 
 
 , , On acet. of Cartoons, &c. ... 
 
 100 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 July 20th. 
 
 ,, Half year to Midsr. 
 
 97 
 
 1 
 
 8 
 
 Aug. 20th. 
 
 , , On acet. H. of Lords Cartoons 
 
 150 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 Oct. 30th. 
 
 , , On further acet. of , , 
 
 200 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 1849. 
 
 June 19 th. 
 
 A. W. Pugin, Esq. Balance for Cartoons for) 
 
 120 
 
 0 
 
 Q 
 
 
 Stained Glass j 
 
 
 1852. 
 Jan. 10th. 
 
 A. W. Pugin, Esq. 
 
 50 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 The whole amount paid was thus 2325Z, 3s. 2d. Of this, except the first and 
 last cheques, lOOZ. in all, it is plainly shewn that all were mere advancef, 
 throiigh Sir C. Barry, of public money, for the salary and expenses connected 
 with the wood-carving and the cartoons for the stained glass, — A. B. 
 
64 
 
 TPIE ARCHITECT OF THE 
 
 “But one of the most extraordinary statements made by 
 Mr. E. AV. Pugin is this, that his father assisted Barry in making 
 designs for Trentham Hall. 
 
 “ Now, with the exception of some alterations to the small 
 church there, all the work Barry did at Trentham was Italian 
 — a style in which, I believe, Pugin never drew a line, unless, 
 perhaps, to give point to some of his humourous ‘contrasts.’ 
 Indeed, he held Greek, Eoman, and all their derivatives, in 
 such utter abhorrence that when at Pome, as he once told me, 
 he was looked upon as a heretic, for he denounced St. Peter’s 
 itself as pagan. However Catholic Pugin may have been in 
 other matters, in art he was undoubtedly a sectarist. 
 
 “ There is one more point in Mr. E. W. Pugin’s statements, 
 upon which I think it right to remark. He speaks of work 
 done by his father for Barry at the Birmingham Grammar 
 School, in terms which may lead some persons to suppose that 
 he had a share in designing that building. But his work there 
 was of precisely the same nature as that he did at Westminster. 
 It was confined to drawings for fittings, furniture, and orna- 
 mental details. The designs for the building, like those for the 
 Houses of Parliament, were made and worked out, even in struc- 
 tural details, by Barry alone ; and on that, as on other similar 
 occasions, I had full opportunity of watching the origin and pro- 
 gress of Barry’s ideas, from his first sketch to his perfect design. 
 
 “ In conclusion, and in order to put a stop to all future asser- 
 tion or insinuation that Pugin, after his return to work on the 
 Houses of Parliament, had a share in designing any part of 
 them, I declare, that up to the final completion of the build- 
 ing, every part, even the minute detail of the architecture, as 
 distinguished from mere decoration, was designed by Barry 
 alone. Abundance of Pugin’s woik — and admirable work it is 
 — may be seen throughout the building, but it is all of the 
 kind described in his letter of 1845. 
 
 “The bays and attic of the river front, the two towers, in 
 short, all the important parts of the building, were not only 
 worked out by Barry in innumerable sketches and drawings, 
 but they were, under his immediate and constant supervision, 
 carefully modelled and remodelled in plaster. The models were 
 kept in sancto, and there, locked in with his excellent modeller 
 Mabey, and occasionally myself, Barry studied and finally 
 settled every detail that could, in the slightest degree, affect 
 his design— a likely man, truly, to adopt the designs of another ! 
 
NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTER, 
 
 ()5 
 
 “ Mr. E. W. Pngin may persist in claiming for his fatlio.r 
 what his father, both in public and in private, refused to claim 
 for himself. But by all persons who worked Avith or foi- Barry, 
 and especially by myself, Avho kncAv not only what lie did but 
 what he thought, the assertion that Pugin, or any otlicr person, 
 had the slightest claim to share with Barry the credit of design- 
 ing the Houses of Parliament must be declared preposterous.* 
 
 .“The extraordinary statements which Mr. E. W. Pugin lias 
 thought proper to put forward and maintain, must have been 
 made in utter ignorance of the facts, but such ignorance, con- 
 sidering the means at hand of ascertaining the truth, must 
 
 surelv be deemed inexcusable. ^ t v- 
 
 “ JOilN L. \\ OM'K. 
 
 “20^/i September, 1867.” 
 
 Pai:t III. 
 
 “ Upon again considering Mr. Pugin’s statements, I notice 
 one upon which, as it is possible it may have some influence on 
 persons who have not studied Barry’s works chronologically, it 
 may be worth while to make some remarks. 
 
 “We are told, that in order to be convinced it was fiom 
 Pugin that Barry derived his knowledge of Gothic architcctui o, 
 we have only to compare his earlier works, erected in the days 
 of his ignorance, with his later works, designed under the 
 guidance of a master. But Avith regard to his great Avork at 
 Westminster we are spaied the trouble of comparison, for 
 . Mr. E. W. Pugin has boldly asserted that it was the Avork, not 
 of the advancing pupil, but of the master himself. 
 
 “ Now, it was perfectly true of Barry, as of many other men 
 eminent in art, that to the end of his days he Avas constantly 
 learning. And, as from the study of books and buildings, so 
 from his intercourse with Pugin, he derived much valuable 
 knowledge, which unconsciously influenced his future works. 
 But from neither books, buildings, nor men, was he ever knoAvn 
 to copy. His mind was creative ; and copying Avas repugnant 
 to his nature.t 
 
 * Mr, E. W. Pugin has declared in one of l)is letters, that he does not accuse 
 the witnesses opposed to him of wilful misrepresentation, but that they were 
 not aware there was a secret influence at work by which Barry Avas con- 
 stantly inspired and guided. But this influence must have been subtle 
 indeed to have remained unknown to one wlio, by some of Barry’s assistants, 
 was called his “ familiar,” 
 
 t Mr. E. W. Pngin has admitted that “Barry was never satisfied till Jic liad 
 “seen ten different ways of doing one thing.” Is that tlie trait of a copyist? 
 
THE ARCHITECT OF THE 
 
 Of) 
 
 “ Barry was continually advancing in knowledge of his art ; 
 and when he had to make his design for the Birmingham 
 Grammar School, which, as I have stated in my former remarks, 
 was completed without the aid of Pugin, he had already 
 acquired a mastery in Gothic architecture which, with his 
 habitually unceasing study, and the help of draughtsmen pro- 
 ficient in Gothic detail, might have enabled him to complete 
 his Westminster Palace, as we now see it, without the aid of 
 Pugin. 
 
 “ When Pugin was first employed by Barry he was a young 
 man (of three and twenty), little known except as the author 
 of some excellent works on Gothic details. But what had he 
 then done as an architect ? He may have completed his house 
 near Salisbury, but that was not a work likely to have induced 
 Barry to select him as his instructor. And what are the works 
 upon which, even now, rests his reputation as an architect? 
 The most important of them is, I think, St. George’s Cathedral 
 in Southwark. But who, with that work before him, can 
 believe that its architect could have designed the Houses of 
 Parliament ? 
 
 “ The truth is, that neither Pugin nor Barry arrived at 
 excellence per saltum ; and I have frequently heard them in- 
 dulge in good-humoured banter of each other’s early works. 
 Pugin sketching laughable caricatures of a Commissioner’s 
 church, and Barry retorting with allusions to Pugin’s work at 
 AVindsor Castle — work of which he was so heartily ashamed, 
 that he declared it ‘a crime he must expiate in purgatory.’ 
 
 “ But is it conceivable that Barry, who had, it is acknow- 
 ledged, a master mind, could adopt the designs of an assistant 
 whose principles in art were directly ojqiosed to his oAvn ? 
 AVith Barry, order, symmetry and, above all, unity, were es- 
 sential principles of composition in every design whose import- 
 ance made grandeur attainable. But by Pugin, these principles 
 were either disregarded or anathematized as heretical. Indeed, 
 in the many discussions I had with him on the subject, I con- 
 fess it appeared to me that his one essential to perfection, 
 equally in men as in things, was this — to he Gothic. 
 
 “ A grande idee, like Barry’s — a vast design, in which every 
 feature was ‘ but a part of one stupendous whole ’ — could have 
 presented itself to Pugin’s imagination only as a nightmare. 
 Barry, it is well-known, belonged to the classical school, ITigin 
 to the school now in the ascendant, the romantic ; and if both 
 
NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTER. 
 
 ()7 
 
 had been great poets instead of arehitects, Barry, perhaps, 
 
 might have composed a ‘ Paradise Lost,’ but Pugin ‘ Canterbury 
 
 ‘Tales.’* ^ _ 
 
 “John L. W olfh. 
 
 “ September 26 , 1867 .” 
 
 “ I have read Mr. Pugin’s pamphlet with attention, but I can 
 find little more in it than he had previously put forward in 
 numerous newspapers — nothing, in fact, that in any judicial 
 inquiry would be received as evidence. Ilis extracts from Iiis 
 father’s diaries and Sir Charles Barry’s letters prove no iiKjrc 
 than what has never been denied — that Pugin did much work 
 for Barry, and that Barry appreciated botli the work and tlie 
 workman. But the assertion, that much of the work done con- 
 sisted of original designs, rests merely on assumption, inference, 
 hearsay, or tradition. 
 
 “ I leave it to others to comment on the evidence hitherto 
 adduced on either side. But I think it right to say that, when 
 the above statements were written, I had held no communica- 
 tion with any of the witnesses, except those who were members 
 of Sir Charles Barry’s family. No number of witnesses could 
 have altered a statement of facts that had occurred within my 
 own knowledge and recollection. 
 
 “ There is but very little I need add to my former statements, 
 but as Mr. Pugin has asserted that almost the whole of tlio 
 internal fittings of the Houses of Parliament was designed by 
 his father, I must add, as to some important parts of those fit- 
 tings in which I took particular interest, that the ceilings of 
 the two Houses were the subject of frequent discussion between 
 Barry and myself ; and I can say, that the general designs, 
 the arrangement of beams, brackets, and panelling, and even 
 their sections, were the work of Barry himself ; and when 
 Pugin was employed to make the working drawings, he had 
 little more to do than any architect in Barry’s position must 
 have delegated to a chief clerk. 
 
 “ The throne was originally designed Avith a spire-like canopy 
 of tabernacle- work ; but fearing it would interfere Avith the 
 frescoes to be placed aboA^e, Barry requested Pugin to draAv out 
 a throne in harmony with the general style of fittings he had 
 determined to adopt. Pugin’s design, Avhich I Avell remember. 
 
 * While Barry was still in the zenith of his fame, his former rival, Cockerell, 
 said to him, “ Oh ! Barry, you are now ‘ the favourite of the market,’ hut 
 “ mark my words, you may Live to see yourself, like Soane and Smirke, out of 
 “ fashion.” 
 
 F 2 
 
G8 
 
 THE ARCHITECT OF THE 
 
 had much the appearance of a heavy half-tester bedstead ; but 
 Barry so altered it in proportion and arrangement of details, 
 that when it was returned to Pugin to prepare the working 
 drawings, little more remained of the original design than the 
 general form. 
 
 “ December, 1867.” 
 
 John L. Wolfe. 
 
 “ 1, Westminster Chambers, >S^.TF., 23 January, 1868. 
 
 “ My deak Alfred, — I have read the statements of Mr. Wolfe 
 which are to be published in the ‘ Peply ’ to Mr. E. Pugin’s 
 pamphlet, and although they of course not only embrace the 
 period on which I am able to speak, but a much earlier one, 
 I yet feel that a few words from me will seem naturally to be 
 expected, in relation to the time (1840 to 1847) during which 
 I lived and worked at home continuously. During nearly the 
 whole of this period, I was not only assisting in my father’s 
 office on the drawings for the Kew Palace at Westminster, and 
 others of his works (in company with my old friend and present 
 partner Mr. Banks), but was also acting for him in the con- 
 fidential relation of secretary, in which capacity I necessarily 
 became aware of all his correspondence, and also with all his 
 pecuniary transactions. I was also living at home, and with 
 him, not only during official hours, but at all other times, seeing 
 how in early morning and till late at night, he was devoting 
 his every thought and energy to his works, among which of 
 course his ‘Great Work’ took by far the largest share of his 
 time. During the same time, I think I may venture to say, 
 that the late Mr. Pugin never paid him a visit at which either 
 I was not present, or with the nature of which I was unac- 
 quainted, and from this constant intercourse, I feel I am able 
 to repeat with most perfect confidence all that I have said in 
 my letters to the ‘ Times.’ I mention these facts in order to 
 show that I was placed in a position to give weight to my 
 unhesitating assertion, that the extraordinary theory advanced 
 by Mr. E. Pugin, that his father furnished Sir Charles at the 
 outset, and from time to time, with designs which he, in some 
 secret time and place, copied, and put forth as his own, deceiv- 
 ing thereby his own office assistants, is utterly an assumption 
 on his part, and untrue in fact. It would have been physically 
 impossible for such a course to have been followed without my 
 knowledge (as is considerately suggested by Mr. E. Pugin), 
 
NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSI’EK. 
 
 ()J) 
 
 during tire years of wliicli I speak ; and since during that same 
 time, the detailed designs of every part of so inucli of the 
 building as was then in progress, were studied by my father, 
 designed and re-designed over and over again by his own hand, 
 and in my presence, modelled and re-modelled, till his ci itical 
 taste was satisfied, it seems unnecessary to say more to cstablisli 
 his undoubted claim to the whole of the New Palace at West- 
 minster with all its merits and demerits, as to which opinion 
 seems at present divided. 
 
 “ That Mr. Pugin was of essential service to my father as an 
 accomplished master of all the details of Gothic arcliitecture, 
 and that he designed and drew out for execution mucli of tlie 
 purely ornamental detail with which the building abounds, 
 neither would I, nor any of us, hesitate to acknowledge ; and 
 further that his friendship, enthusiasm, and energy was C(jn- 
 stantly of the greatest comfort to my father, under tlic strain 
 of mind and body put on him, is also most true : but that Pugin 
 ever made a design, in the proper sense of that word, for tlio 
 whole, or any important feature in the building as now exist- 
 ing, is equally untrue. It may suit Mr. E. Pugin speciously to 
 urge, that the minor decorative details of a building in fact, 
 by their aggregation, really constitute the building ; but the 
 hollowness of such an argument may safely be left to the judg- 
 ment of any candid person, whether professional or amateur. 
 It may safely be asked whether a building which is nobly 
 designed in mass — well arranged as to plan — well proportioned 
 in its exterior and interior features — depends mainly on its 
 detail and decorations for its impressiveness and character ; 
 and whether it will not have all these effects, even were the 
 detail poor or faulty. And the converse is equally true, that 
 no amount of elaborate detail will redeem a building from ugli- 
 ness and ill effect, if its proportions externally and internally 
 are bad. 
 
 “ With respect to the Great Work itself, taken as a whole, 
 and with reference to the period at which it was executed, 
 I have no fear that the dispassionate verdict of the majority of 
 those able to judge, not only at present but also in future ages, 
 will place it among the architectural marvels and triumphs of 
 the world. Did I not feel this conviction, the thought that my 
 father for it sacrificed ease, comfort, pecuniary benefits, health, 
 and I may even say his life, would be inexpressibly sad ; and 
 it is almost too great a tax on my powers of self-command t<* 
 
70 
 
 THE ARCHITECT OF THE 
 
 discuss at all calmly the claim now put forth by Mr. E. Pugin 
 when both the principals are taken from us, both of whom 
 could and, I am sure, would have been one in denying ‘ toto 
 coelo,’ a claim, which is, as regards my father’s fame and reputa- 
 tion, as cruel as it is untrue. 
 
 “ With respect to the Victoria Tower, as to which Mr. Eer- 
 gusson has lately hazarded the theory, that the change from 
 its original design to its present shape might be due in some 
 degree to Mr. Pugin’s influence and devotion to elaborate de- 
 tail, Mr. Wolfe’s narrative of the long study and train of 
 designs which were made for this great feature, and which 
 gradually resolved themselves into the Tower as we now see 
 it, will be sufScient answer. I can myself corroborate that 
 narrative, as it relates to the time when, as I said, I was aware 
 of all that was going on. 
 
 “ I do not propose to discuss the question whether Mr. Per- 
 gusson’s strictures upon it are correct or not, as each person 
 who takes sufficient interest in it will form his own opinion ; 
 but for this, as for all other features of the design, I must 
 repeat my assertion that Sir Charles, and no one else, is re- 
 sponsible. 
 
 “ Yours, ever afiectionately, 
 
 “ Charles Barry.” 
 
 ( III.) The following letters are those received by us from 
 gentlemen actually engaged in carrying out the work of the 
 New Palace under my father’s direction, in daily and hourly 
 communication with him. I could easily have increased the 
 number, but I would admit no letter which does not sj>eaJc 
 from intimate personal hnowledge. 
 
 The first are from his chief pupils and assistants : — 
 
 (a) 1, Westminster Chamhers, Victoria-street, Westminster, S.W., 
 
 “ August 21, 1867. 
 
 “My dear Edward Barry, — Mr. Wolfe has shown me his 
 letter to you respecting Mr. Pugin. I was, as you know, the 
 head of your father’s office immediately after the period of 
 the competition ; I can therefore confirm every word of Mr. 
 Wolfe’s statements as far as they relate to that time, and I 
 could refer to many corroborative circumstances, did space 
 permit me to do so. 
 
NEW PALACE AT WESTMINS'rEK. 
 
 71 
 
 “ There is no doubt that Sir C. Barry derived valuable assist- 
 ance in carrying out the details of his designs from ]\lr. Pugin, 
 Mr. Thomas, and the rest of his stalf, many of whom are now 
 architects of celebrity, and might claim as I’casonably as IMr. 
 Pugin now does for his father the credit of having designed the 
 Westminster Palace. 
 
 “ I remain, dear Edward, yours truly, 
 
 “ Kobt. K. Banks, 
 
 “ For fifteen years chief assistant to the late Sir Charles Barry. 
 
 “ E. M. Barry, Esq., A.B.A.’' 
 
 I subjoin the letter referred to : — 
 
 “ August 20, 18()7. 
 
 “ My dear Friend, — I will explain as precisely as 1 can, the 
 nature and extent of the assistance derived from Ihigin in de- 
 signing the Westminster Palace, and as it is well known tliat 1 
 was almost daily and nightly with ymur father during the i)rc- 
 paration of the competition designs, and that I was cognizant 
 of, and consulted upon, every stage of the work, I trust I may 
 be accepted as a competent witness to the facts I have now to 
 relate. 
 
 “ It was not till after your father had originated, and, with 
 his own hand, drawn out the general design, both in plan and 
 elevation, that Pugin’s assistance was obtained. Pugin, then, 
 under your father’s instructions, and from his designs, made, 
 besides some perspective views, drawings, mostly in pencil, of 
 the details of the building. During this process I often saAV 
 him at work, and heard his amusing criticisms of your father’s 
 ideas, which were frequently opposed to his own. For this 
 reason most of these drawings (for which and for some subse- 
 quently made Pugin received 400 guineas) were ultimately set 
 aside, and when the competition drawings were finally prepared, 
 although some of the least important of them were drawn by 
 Pugin, they did not exhibit a single feature designed by him. 
 This I positively declare. 
 
 “ Your father was, of all men I have known, the one least 
 likely to adopt other people’s ideas of art ; but there is no doubt 
 that Pugin’s valuable suggestions and criticisms may have 
 helped to modify his views, and contributed to the production 
 of new ideas. 
 
 “ I hardly need say that the building as executed bears little 
 
72 
 
 THE AECHITECT OF THE 
 
 resemblance to tlie competition design ; but I may add that the 
 most important changes in it, those indeed which determined 
 its character, were made by yonr father alone, while he was 
 with me in the country, and not in communication with 
 Pugin. 
 
 “ I will now explain the reason of Pugin’s direct appoint- 
 ment by the Government, and also the application of his letter 
 to the ‘Builder’ in 1845. The appointment was suggested and 
 recommended by your father, with the view of securing to his 
 friend a position not likely to be affected by any change in his 
 own relation to the Goveimment, which at times appeared 
 critical. The letter to the ‘ Builder ’ was intended to put an 
 end, once for all, to such claims as arc now advanced, and it 
 was written by Pugin in concert with your father, after con- 
 sultation with me, not only to refer to the x)ast, but to explain 
 publicly the state of the case for the future. The statement 
 made by Pugin that his occupation was to assist in carrying out 
 your father’s designs is strictly and literally true of the whole 
 of his connection with the Houses of Parliament. 
 
 “ I would go into further details if necessary, but I have 
 perhaps said enough to show that Pugin acted in complete 
 subordination to your father, and, in the matter of competition, 
 strictly as an assistant draughtsman, although one of the highest 
 order. 
 
 “ Pugin was not the man to accept, still less to claim, the 
 credit due to others ; and I can state most positively that he 
 never to my knowledge advanced any assertion at variance 
 with his own clear and carefully worded letter of 1845. 
 
 “ Deati Dr, Barry, — As I perceive you are about to publish 
 a reply to certain statements made by Mr. E. W. Ihigin, my 
 personal knowledge and experience may be of some service. 
 
 “ \ou are perhaps aware that I had the good fortune of 
 acting under the immediate direction of your highly-gifted 
 
 (0 
 
 Great Queen Street, Westminster, Janiiarij 24th, 1868.* 
 
 * This letter ’’sfrom Mr. Gibson, the well-known architect, who was included 
 in the invitations to the recent Law Courts Competition. 
 
NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTER. 
 
 73 
 
 fatlier, as pupil and assistant, from tlio middle of 1835 (when 
 I was for a sliort time at the building of the Birmingham 
 Grammar School) until the autumn of 1844; and during tliese 
 nine years I saw, and had a great deal to do witli, the drawings 
 as modified, and those for the estimate, as well as the details 
 for the New Houses of Parliament as executed, wliieh were 
 designed by him in this manner, lie would make plan after 
 plan, sketch after sketch, and was never satisfied until lie laid 
 tried to improve whatever he had in hand (wliethcr it was 
 in Italian or Gothic) ; he never rested before he obtained that 
 symmetry and proportion for which he is so justly celebrated ; 
 in fact, I have often rubbed out and re-drawn many times over, 
 his own views and directions, and I have seen drawings, aftei' 
 all this consideration, sponged out at night, and found he had 
 re-drawn on the same paper, on my arrival the next day, a new 
 design ; and this would often be repeated, so that the cost to 
 him in disused designs and detail drawings must have been some- 
 thing enormous, up to the time I left in 1 844,when the great bulk 
 of the building was far advanced. At the early time to which 
 I have alluded (1835), there were very few who knew anything 
 about Gothic architecture except himself, Pugin, and a few 
 others. Now your father had not only designed, but had already 
 nearly completed, the exterior of what may even now be con- 
 sidered a very good specimen of Gothic architecture (I hero 
 allude to the Birmingham Grammar School). I have seen no 
 evidence adduced showing that Barry even knew Pugin as 
 early as 1833, in which year he competed for the last-named 
 building ; in fact Pugin could not have been much more than 
 twenty years old at that date. I refer now more particularly 
 to this building, and I am not singular in my opinion that its 
 fa 9 ade, as designed by Barry in 1833, was the germ of his first 
 design for the Houses of Parliament, and I well recollect one 
 of the commissioners, who selected the original design for the 
 Houses of Parliament, stating to his friends in my presence that 
 Barry had rather repeated himself. 
 
 “ That Pugin made drawings for Barry in 1835 no one dis- 
 putes, but I much question that he designed for him. 
 
 “ Again, with regard to the designs prepared for ‘ tlio esti- 
 mate ’ of the Houses of Parliament, I maintain that not only 
 were tracings of ‘ the plans ’ sent to Mr. Pugin for his guidance 
 in making out details, when he did not work at the office, but 
 also sections and elevations of those parts which Barry designed 
 
74 
 
 THE ARCHITECT OF THE 
 
 and wished Pugin to detail, all of which, so far as I know, were 
 set aside in carrying out the work. 
 
 “ Barry was the last man to depend upon others for designs ; 
 hut I do know this, that Pugin assisted as others did with an 
 earnest goodwill in the vast amount of work for which Barry 
 was solely responsible. 
 
 “ I am yours, very truly, 
 
 “ John Gibson. 
 
 “ Dr. Barry ^ Cheltenham.^’ 
 
 (c) “ 20, Cockspiir Street, Pall Mall, S. W.,* 
 
 “ 24:th January, 1 868. 
 
 “ My dear Barry, — I am very glad to have an opportunity of 
 bearing testimony from my own personal knowledge and obser- 
 vation of the duties performed by your late father as the sole 
 architect and designer of the present Palace of Westminster. 
 
 “I was placed with him in the year 1840, and remained with 
 him as pupil and assistant till the year 1848. In the first three 
 years I acted as his amanuensis, and had the charge of his cor- 
 respondence, and consequently was placed in a most favourable 
 position to watch his various labours at the desk or the drawing 
 board. In fact during this particular period I was constantly at 
 his elbow I might say. 
 
 “ The drawings of the river front, the various internal 
 courts, the two Houses of Lords and Commons, the Royal 
 Gallery, the Central Hall, St. Stephen’s Hall and Porch, the Royal 
 Staircase, the Victoria Tower to a height of 130 feet, the Central 
 Tower complete, and the Clock Tower to the corbelled parapet 
 underneath the clock face, were positively executed (making 
 several thousands in number) in the eight years I was with him. 
 Your father, with an industry and energy unparalleled, with an 
 amount of resource in design and a facility of rapid execution 
 with his pencil rarely equalled, supplied all the art and most 
 of the constructive brains for these drawings. Kot content 
 with sketches to small scales to give to his assistants, many 
 drawings and details to the largest scales were prepared in pencil 
 by his own hand, and given to us to ink-in and send out to the 
 
 * This letter is also from a well-known architect, who was asked to compete 
 for the National Gallery and the Law Courts, and whose statements will carry 
 great weight witli the Profession. 
 
NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTER. 
 
 75 
 
 works. Few in tliat office bad tbe temerity to offer him sug- 
 gestions at all, and fewer still at any rate from an art point of 
 view. So singularly was his mind constituted, and so tlioroughly 
 did he rely upon his own resources, that rather than, as ho 
 thought, waste time in giving directions to his suhordinatcs, ho 
 would make the drawings himself and send them into tho office 
 for completion and copying previous to delivery to the con- 
 tractors. 
 
 “ Up to the period of the appointment of the late Mr. Pugin as 
 superintendent of the wood-carving at Thames Bank ^VorkH 
 about 1844 or 1845 (I write from memory only as to tho dates) I 
 never saw a drawing or detail of stone-work of Mr. Pugin’s used 
 in the office. There were some 30 or 40 drawings prepared ante- 
 cedent to my connection with jmur father, hut an inspection of 
 their peculiar character and manner would he quite sufficient to 
 satisfy the most superficial observer that they bore no re- 
 semblance to the present building as executed, other than being 
 in the style of the 15th century work. 
 
 “ So far as regards the stone- work of the building in its deli- 
 cacy of detail inside and out, the designing of its towers, and tho 
 grouping of its masses, no one can with truth lay the slightest 
 claim to being the author of its merits or defects but your 
 father. 
 
 “ With regard to the internal finishings of tho building, tho 
 decorative wood and oak-work, I can speak also from the same 
 personal knowledge, that he alone made the designs of all tho 
 main features of the work, and his ruling mind governed even 
 that which was not the actual production of his own hand ; on 
 this point you must have plenty of evidence by the drawings 
 still in your possession. 
 
 “ That the late Mr. Pugin gave your father most valuable 
 assistance in much of the details of the fittings and finishings 
 has never been disputed ; but that his assistance was solely con- 
 fined to his own specialite of decorative detail in wood-carving, 
 metal- work, furniture, paper hanging, and polychrony, cannot on 
 the other hand be gainsayed by those who were engaged in the 
 work in other capacities, and had opportunities of seeing tho 
 services performed by that talented man. 
 
 “ As one instance of the antagonism of views exhibited by tho 
 two men in the style of treatment of the decorative finishings of 
 the House of Lords I well recollect seeing a drawing by the late 
 Mr. Pugin, which he sent to your father, being his idc'a for the 
 
76 
 
 TPIE AECHITECT OF THE 
 
 Throne. If this is in existence it will convince the most 
 sceptical how thoroughly monastic, as distinguished from civil or 
 domestic, the character of Mr. Pugin’s designs were in most 
 cases whenever he acted independently of your father’s sketches 
 and instructions. 
 
 “ The drawing in question exhibited a gorgeous piece of taber- 
 nacle work, partaking of the character of a bishop’s stall in a 
 cathedral, and which your father unhesitatingly put aside and 
 substituted the present throne, designed by himself as more in accord- 
 ance with its intended purpose. 
 
 “ I understand your brother. Dr. Barry, is preparing a reply 
 to the pamphlet of Mr. Welby Pugin. I am glad of it, as in the 
 interest of truth, and in justice to the most distinguished archi- 
 tect of his day, such pretensions on the part of Mr. Welby Pugin 
 in favour of his father should now and for ever be disposed of. 
 
 “ With the overwhelming testimony of living witnesses that 
 can be produced of the personal labour of your father on the 
 designs of the New Palace at Westminster, the drawings and 
 correspondence by his own hand in your possession, I am confi- 
 dent that when both sides are heard the verdict of the public 
 (for that of the Profession has been given long ago) will not be 
 long withheld as to who was the designer and architect of the 
 Houses of Parliament — Sir Charles Barry alone, with the subor- 
 dinate aid of several principal assistants and a large staff, or the 
 late Mr. Pugin without a staff, but with one very zealous but in- 
 discreet assistant who shall be nameless. 
 
 “ Yours truly, 
 
 “ G. Somers Clarke.” 
 
 (d) “ Sir,* — I have not seen Mr. E. W. Pugin’s pamphlet, — but 
 I have carefully read and re-read the correspondence in your 
 journal respecting the ‘ Westminster Palace.’ I venture to 
 think that you will allow me a few words on the subject, 
 to supply some information of consequence, that has not yet 
 appeared in your correspondence. I became an articled pupil 
 of the late Sir C. Barry in June, 1836, and was amongst those 
 in his ofSce, who were draughted off to Westminster soon after, 
 to engage in the working out of the designs for the great 
 
 Addressed to the ‘ Pall Mall Gazette ’ (but not inserted, as the editor consi- 
 dered the controversy closed) by another old pupil of Sir C. Barry. 
 
NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTER. 
 
 77 
 
 building in question, where I remained for a period of six 
 years. I was therefore intimately acquainted with that wliich 
 pertains to the undertaking, and this is my title to bo he;ird. 
 
 “ Up to the period I commence with, and in reference to 
 the ‘ Competition Designs,’ the letter of Mr. Talbot Bury and 
 that of Mr. J. L. Wolfe will be sufficient, I am sure, with every 
 right-thinking man to establish the late Sir Chai’lcs ]>ai-i-y’s 
 claim to all the merit of the original designs. 1 may say, more- 
 over, that the substance of their statements was well understood 
 in the office at the time, and I believe them to be strictly and 
 faithfully correct, viz., that Mr. Augustus Welby Bugin was 
 simply employed to work out the designs furnished to him, as 
 any other clerk would have to do, and as indeed he afterwards 
 did in my time. 
 
 “ It is not generally known, but it is a fact that must be 
 named, the ‘ Competition Designs ’ ivere not in any one imrticular 
 carried out, excepting perhaps the broad features of the phin. 
 After the competition decision, from what cause I cannot say, 
 the whole aspect of the design was changed from a grand, mas- 
 sive, castellated building to one of a light, elegant, and more 
 domestic character, and thus Pugin’s works, whatever they may 
 have been in the original drawings, expired. 
 
 “ A revised design ensued, and I can distinctly affirm, from 
 personal knowledge, that this v/as prepared by the head and 
 hands of Sir Charles Barry himself, and consisted of four eleva- 
 tions most wonderfully drawn to a scale of 40 feet to the incli ; 
 these designs were worked out again to a larger scale by the 
 same master-hand before they were passed over to Mr. Pugin, who 
 was employed to make the larger scale drawings required for 
 the surveyor’s quantities only ; in this work, it is but fair to 
 say, that his great rapidity of execution proved eminently 
 useful, under the pressure of the Government to determine the 
 probable cost of the undertaking speedily. On the completion 
 of these drawings Mr. Pugin disappeared from the scene, and 
 was not again employed to my knowledge for maii}^ years ; but 
 then was recommended by Sir Charles Barry to the appoint- 
 ment of superintendent over the wood-carving establishment. 
 Simultaneously with Mr. Pugin’s disappearance and the com- 
 pletion of the estimates founded upon authentic information, 
 that proved the practicability of carrying out an ornate build- 
 ing within reasonable expenditure, disappeared also the desiyns 
 and drawings that had been used, including of course all those pjrepared 
 by Mr. Pugin. 
 
78 
 
 THE ARCHITECT OF THE 
 
 “ No sooner had the difficulty regarding the cost of, and the 
 obtaining of instruction to proceed with, the building been got 
 over, than Sir Charles Barry commenced again with intense 
 earnestness, not simply revising the designs already made, but 
 by producing new ones — and new ones again differing totally 
 from their predecessors, and these again were perpetually 
 undergoing change, as he studied and re-studied, balancing the 
 parts and harmonising the whole up to the very day of exe- 
 cution ; and this incessant study and labour, I doubt not, ex- 
 tended through his whole life, and throughout this great and 
 tremendous undertaking. The result is indeed great and glo- 
 rious — a building that has brought, and will throughout ages 
 bring, honour to this nation and to the profession to which it 
 belonged. 
 
 “ Within my own time I can safely say, that not one frac- 
 tion, not so much as a single moulding in the work executed was 
 designed or ever drawn by Pugin, and I believe that this 
 will apply as fully and as truly to every other portion of the 
 executed work since my time ; for I hold it to be a thing impos- 
 sible, knowing the self-contained mind of this truly great archi- 
 tect, that he could for a moment allow himself to be trammelled 
 by any man as an architectural draughtsman. 
 
 “ I am, Sir, 
 
 “ Your very obedient servant, 
 
 “ Manchester^ Aug. 30, 1867.” “ W. H. Brakspear. 
 
 (e) 160, Hope Street^ Glasgow, 25 September, 1867. 
 
 “ Sir,* — Does any one dispute that Mr. Pugin assisted Sir 
 Charles Barry in making the competition drawings for the 
 Houses of Parliament ? 
 
 “ I suppose that Pugin’s was the best assistance that Barry 
 could obtain at that time. Some of the drawings were entirely 
 from Barry’s own hand, and from Pugin’s known works there 
 can be no doubt were of Barry’s own designing, being as unlike 
 that master’s style as Gothic from Italian work. It was not 
 difficult to discover Barry’s own drawing, for even as a 
 draughtsman he was very prominent. As Pugin could only 
 have assisted in these drawings as a paid clerk, or as a friend. 
 
 Addressed to the ‘ Builder,’ but not inserted. 
 
NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTER. 
 
 79 
 
 how can any credit as architect he ascribed to him in snch a 
 position ? It could never end were this to ho the case ; tlicro 
 were others whose valuable services to Barry rendered the 
 Palace what it is. One name, Mr. John Thomas, sculptor, 1 
 may mention. I might as well claim the design of St. George’s 
 Hall, Liverpool, because I was present and assisted in tlie com- 
 petition drawings for that building, being an intimate friend 
 of poor Elmes ; but who will dare to deprive him of all the 
 honour due to his great work ? 
 
 “ Presume, however, that Barry was totally incapal)le of ]>7'o- 
 ducing such a design as that of the New Houses of I’arliament 
 without the assistance of Pugin, I am perfectly certain that 
 many others besides myself, equally well acquainted with the 
 original designs and the building as executed, know that they 
 do not resemble one another in the slightest degree, beyoiid 
 being a fa9ade and three towers — the centi-al tower being a 
 late addition during Dr. Eeid’s ventilation scheme. During 
 the five years of my apprenticeship I never once saw any of the 
 drawings by Pugin used in making the working plans from 
 which the building was executed ; so much so, I remember that 
 Barry did not even know where these competition drawings 
 had been put, and I can safely vouch they never saw the light 
 of day for many years, being locked up in a box, stowed away 
 among a number of models, when our offices were part of the old 
 Speaker’s House, rendering it impossible that these plans were 
 ever used in carrying out the work. A glance at the original 
 and executed designs, a copy of each of which I have now before 
 me, of the river front with the towers, would convince suffi- 
 ciently the most ardent supporter of Mr. Pugin that the New 
 Houses of Parliament were never designed by him. 
 
 “ There was a charming set of elevations of the three fronts, 
 in difierent-coloured inks, which were drawn by Barry himself ; 
 it was to them that reference was constantly made for informa- 
 tion during the preparation of the detail drawings. I am con- 
 fident, as I have already stated, that not one of the plans 
 drawn by Pugin were ever made use of ; nor is it possible 
 I can be mistaken, as I could name the author of any draw- 
 ing in the office ; and without any disparagement to Pugin’s 
 talents as an architect, I have no hesitation in asserting that 
 Barry’s drawings represented stone, and Pugin’s iron or roire- 
 worh. 
 
 “ I have great pleasure in thus calling to my recollection 
 
so 
 
 THE AECHITECT OF THE 
 
 these circumstances, and hope they may answer the purpose of 
 giving to the late Sir Charles Barry the full credit due to him 
 in every respect, as the highly distinguished architect of the 
 New Houses of Parliament. Surely some of the older pupils 
 than myself now resident in London, will not flinch from adding 
 their testimony to my statements, and prevent any further 
 controversy about our late much respected and talented 
 
 “ I am yours, 
 
 “ George Penrose Kennedy, 
 
 “ Pujpil of the late Sir C. Barry T 
 
 “ 27, King-street, City, 21th August, 1867. 
 
 “ My dear Sir,* — In the ‘ Pall Mall Gazette,’ I have read the 
 correspondence up to the 24th inst., and, having some consi- 
 derable knowledge of the early history of the above important 
 work, have the pleasure to add my testimony to those of Mr. 
 Barry, Mr. Wolfe, Mr. Banks and Mr. Ferrey. 
 
 I was in the office of your father the late Sir Charles Barry. 
 I entered it immediately after the great work was intrusted 
 to him, as superior clerk of the staff employed by him to get 
 out the working drawings of the New Houses, Mr. Banks 
 holding a similar position for works irrespective of this build- 
 ing. My duties, both at your father’s residence and at the 
 office at Westminster, were to work out from his drawings, 
 detail workings, drawings, plans, sections, and elevations, 
 to the same scale as his own, viz. ^ to the foot. During this 
 period the late Mr. A. W. Pugin was occasional assistant at a better 
 salary than my own, and was employed in mahing drawings of 
 parts of the building to enlarged scales, but had for his authority the 
 smaller drawings of Sir C. Barry. I remember particularly a 
 bay of river front, details of wings. Clock Tower, King or 
 Great Tower, ceiling and section of House of Lords and Com- 
 mons, Queen’s Gallery, Eobing Eoom, lobbies, and several other 
 drawings, all of which were known in the office as productions 
 of Mr. A. W. Pugin, and were also known to be enlargements 
 of those prepared by Sir C. Barry himself, existing in the office 
 as studies : from these working drawings the detail estimate 
 
 * On this letter Mr. E. W. Pugin makes a statement, that it was “indited” 
 by my brother, Mr. E. M. Barry. What could have led him to make this state- 
 ment I know not, but I must add that it is absolutely groundless. 
 
 master. 
 
 if) 
 
NFAV TALACE AT WKSTMINSTEI?. 
 
 81 
 
 of cost was made in accordance with the order of Earliamoiit. 
 The position held during all this time by the late Mr. A. W. Fugin 
 was that of an occasional assistant and valued friend, and until lately 
 I have never heard this disputed. 
 
 “ After the general design and estimate received the approval 
 of the authorities, a portion of the building was ordered to bo 
 carried into execution, viz. the river wall and the river fi-ont, 
 and portions of the wings. The working drawings for all tlio 
 works were made in the office of Sir C. Barry, it being undoi* 
 my charge ; and during this period I heaixl very little of the 
 late Mr. A. W. Pugin as connected with your father ; all tlie 
 details of the works being from the pencil of Sir C. Barry, wlio 
 laboured upon the work with great hicility and the most endur- 
 ing industry, even to the injury of his health ; he re-considered 
 his previous designs and made many important im})rovements. 
 I may add, that during the period I remained with Sir C. Barry 
 I had eveiy opportunity of knowing the enormous labour lie 
 gave to the work, and I speak quite within the truth when 1 
 say, every part of that portion of the building in my charge had, the 
 designing hand of Sir C. Barry at least ten times over, and 1 believe 
 also the remainder of the structure has had similar labour and 
 thought bestowed on it. 
 
 “ I know, as a fact, that, although the plan in its general 
 arrangements has remained unaltered, the elevations and sections 
 are very different to the original designs, and no one portion at 
 all accords with any detail prepared by the late Mr. A. \V. 
 Pugin. 
 
 “ As regards the late Mr. Thomas, he was my personal friend, 
 and consulted me upon his engagement with Sir C. Barry ; his 
 duties were those of superintendent of modelling and stone- 
 carving, and in no way interfered with the later duties of 
 Mr. A, \V. Pugin, who did superintend the wood-carving, I have 
 no doubt. 
 
 “ I cannot conclude this letter without saying I have seen 
 Mr. Pugin’s pamphlet ” (On the Designs for the iS'ew Law 
 Courts) “ as well as the correspondence, and it is much to be 
 regretted Mr. Pugin has entered into this controversy. IJe 
 cannot from his age know personally anything of the subject, 
 upon which he has been writing, and the tone is of a sjtirit 
 prevailing now among some young professional men, in boasting 
 that the reputation of more experienced artists is mainly owing 
 to their talents ; and bej ond the annoyance to your family 
 
82 
 
 THE ARCHITECT OF THE 
 
 and yourself, the correspondence can have no effect upon the 
 acknowledged and secure reputation and honours of the late 
 Sir C. Barry. 
 
 “ As regards the reputation of the late Mr. A. W. Pugin, it was 
 established upon different data from those pretended hy his son, and 
 I am persuaded his son’s statement would not havs been permitted had 
 he been alive. 
 
 “ I can, therefore, only conceive that Mr. Pugin has taken 
 the mischievous course of endeavouring to damage the reputa- 
 tion of Sir C. Barry, and I am equally sorry to say your own 
 likewise, in order, if possible, to obtain a position for himself 
 upon false and pretended artistic wisdom as yet unacknow- 
 ledged hy the public, and bringing upon the profession a great 
 scandal. j dear Sir, 
 
 “ Yours very truly, 
 
 “ E. M. Barry, Esq., A.B.A.” “ W. Weight. 
 
 The following is from Mr. Groves, Mr. Wright’s successor: — 
 
 (^) “ 9, Craig’s Court, Charing Cross, 
 
 “24^^ January, 1868. 
 
 “ Dear Sir, — I n reply to your enquiries respecting my duties, 
 Ac., at the then “ Houses of Parliament ” under the late Sir 
 Charles Barry, I beg to state that I succeeded Mr. Wright in 
 August, 1839, as chief superintendent of the office (on the spot) 
 and the works, and my duty was to inspect the works once or 
 twice a day as occasion required (there being three clerks of 
 works always there, each having a separate portion of the build- 
 ing under their inspection), and the remainder of my time was 
 engaged in the office, &c., making out the numerous drawings 
 required (with Messrs. Gibson, Brakspear, and other assistants 
 and pupils) to be issued on the works for the direction and 
 guidance of the contractors in erecting the building, and I re- 
 mained in this position until April, 1845. 
 
 “ During the whole time of my engagement I have no recol- 
 lection of seeing Mr. Pugin more than once or twice on the spot, 
 apparently inspecting the works as other visitors did. I have 
 never worked from any of his drawings that I am aware of, nor 
 can I recollect ever seeing them, but always from those of the 
 late Sir Charles Barry, who was almost daily with me direct- 
 
NEW PALACE A'r WESTMINSTEIL 
 
 <S8 
 
 ing and supervising the working drawings at the time in pro- 
 gress from which the building was cari’icd into cllbct. 
 
 “ Nothing was a greater surprise to me than to liear tliat niiy 
 one had arisen to dispute the claim of the late Sir ('Itarh's 
 Barry as architect of the now W'estminster Palace, for which 
 there appears to me no justification. 
 
 “ I am, dear Sir, 
 
 “ Your very obedient servant, 
 
 “ Edward 31. Barry, Esq., A.B.A.. dr.” “ ¥. IT. Ghovks. 
 
 The following are from tlie well-known contractors for the 
 New Palace : — 
 
 (/i) Norhury Barh, Dorldmj, 9th Sejdemhcr, 18()7. 
 
 “My ])ear Sin, — It is with much pleasure that I comj)ly witli 
 the request contained in your note to me of tlie 7th inst. 
 
 “ 1 shall not enter into the details of the controvei'sy between 
 you and Mr. E. Welby Pugin, but confine myself simply to tlie 
 point at issue as far as my own personal knowledge and ol)ser- 
 vation extend. 
 
 “ I was, as you are aware, engaged in the building of the 
 Houses of Parliament for a period of nearly fifteen years; in 
 fact, from the foundation nearly lO the completion of tlie worlv 
 as it now stands. 
 
 “ During the progress of the works I received every requisite 
 instruction from the late Sir Charles BaiTy ; and all the plans, 
 working drawings, &c., came to me direct from his office. All 
 information and directions I required as the works proceeded 
 emanated immediately from the same source ; and I knew of no 
 other directing hand than your father’s. His plans, as adopted 
 by the'Government, were carried out exclusively, as I believed, 
 under his eminent skill and assiduous personal attention ; and 
 I believe that such was the conviction of all who were engaged 
 under me in the execution of the work. I may say that I never 
 had the pleasure of seeing the late Mr. Pugin on the works more 
 than on two or three occasions, while I was engaged on them. 
 
 “I know that Sir Charles often consulted his friend, 31 r. 
 Pugin, for whose great talent I believe he entertained the 
 highest respect and admiration, in some departments connected 
 with the details of the work, such as in the caived and other 
 internal decorations of the building. 
 
84 
 
 THE ARCHITECT OF THE 
 
 “ The letter of Mr. Pugin of the 3rd September, 1845, ex- 
 presses in exact terms, I think, the relative position in which 
 Sir Charles and he stood, and it confirms my views at the time 
 precisely. 
 
 “ It would be difficult for me to express so concisely and clearly 
 as that letter does the part Mr. Pugin took in the great work ; 
 and I am therefore glad to adopt it as expressing my sincere 
 belief and conviction of its accuracy on every point referred to. 
 
 “ Indeed, until the present controversy arose, I never enter- 
 tained the least supposition that any other than your father 
 claimed, or was entitled to, the merit of the work. 
 
 “ Believe me, dear Sir, 
 
 “ Yours very truly, 
 
 “ Edward M. Barry, Esq.^^ “ T. Grissell. 
 
 (i) “9, Great Gecrge-street, Westminster, 8^. IP., 
 
 “ 16//i September, 1867. 
 
 “ Dear Mr. Barry, — I was, in conjunction with my late 
 partner Mr. Thomas Grissell, connected with the building of 
 the New Houses of Parliament, from their commencement until 
 the year 1845, when we dissolved partnership, and during the 
 whole of that period I had every reason to know that your 
 late father. Sir Charles Barry, was the sole architect, and from 
 him alone we, as contractors, received all drawings and instruc- 
 tions needful for carrying out the work. 
 
 “ In constructing so extensive an edifice as that of the Houses 
 of Parliament, the architect would, no doubt, have sought 
 assistance in carrying out the details of the work from many 
 persons competent to aid him, as it is obvious that no person 
 could have prepared all the drawings himself, especially while 
 engaged in a very extensive professional career, but I never 
 heard a rumour until now, that the designs and plans, except 
 such details as I have above referred to, had emanated from or 
 been claimed by any other person than Sir Charles Barry, who 
 was, I most sincerely believe, entitled to their parentage. 
 
 “ Believe me, dear Mr. Barry, 
 
 “ Yours truly, 
 
 “ Edivard iff. Barry, Esq.’’ “ S. Morton Peto. 
 
NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTER. 
 
 sr> 
 
 (^) “ 13, Parliament Street, S.W., 2nd October, 18G7. 
 
 “ Dear Sir, — M y connection with Sir C. Bariy (then resident 
 in Foley Place) commenced before the completion of tlie Now 
 Honses of Parliament, and I executed work for him at the 
 Travellers’ Club, Mr. Attree’s house at Brighton, and at Lord 
 Tankerville’s at Walton. During the whole term of the erec- 
 tion of the Houses of Parliament I was constantly emi)l()yed 
 for him, at first as manager of the London marble works, subse- 
 quently and for the last twelve years of his life, on my own 
 account. 
 
 “ During all this time I took all my instructions either from 
 Sir Charles or from his clerk of works, but chiolly from him- 
 self, as I w'orked to his own drawings, which I have repeatedly 
 seen him make and alter as occasion required. 
 
 “ I had never during the whole period to deal Avith Mr. J’ugin, 
 save on one occasion, when some small spandrel panels in the 
 fioor of the Central Hall of the Houses of Parliament had to be 
 filled in, the tiles intended for them having been forgotten.* 1 n 
 this instance I gave to Mr. Pugin, by order of Sir Charles, the 
 sizes of these panels, that he might forward them to IMessrs. 
 Minton for execution, as I apprehend, after his own designs. 
 
 “ In all my experience of architects I have knoAvn fcAv, if 
 any, who have devoted so much personal labour to the design- 
 ing the even minute details of their works ; and knowing as I 
 do, the extreme and conscientious attention gi^^en by Sir 
 Charles to the daily and even hourly progress of his great 
 undertaking, and the extent to which he personalty identified 
 himself with its every feature, I can only style any attempt to 
 detract from his well-earned fame as the sole architect and 
 designer of the New blouses of Parliament as simply prepos- 
 terous. j yours obediently, 
 
 “ W'm. Field. 
 
 “ Edward M. Barry, Esq., A.B.A.” 
 
 The following are from Mr. Quarm, for many years the 
 trusted representative of my father at Westminster, and from 
 Mr. Bayne, superintendent of the wood-carving Avorks : — 
 
 * This passage curiously explains Sir Ciiaiies’s Letter XIV. on page 49 of 
 Mr. E. Pugin’s pamphlet, stating that he forgot the arrangement of the tiles 
 in the angle spaces of this floor. — E. M. 13. 
 
86 
 
 THE ARCHITECT OF THE 
 
 (/) “ Bose Villa, St. John's Boad, Brixton, 
 
 January 23rd, 1868. 
 
 “ Dear Mr. Barry, — I liave purposely avoided all correspond- 
 ence throughout the controversy you have had with Mr. E. 
 Pugin respecting the statement he persists in, claiming for his 
 father the merit of the design for the New Houses of Parlia- 
 ment ; and had the matter rested on the question of the design 
 only, I should not have troubled you with this letter, as others 
 have recently disposed of this claim from their early and inti- 
 mate connexion with the building. But, when I find other 
 claims set forth affecting the period of my direction of the 
 works, I cannot refrain from repudiating of my own knowledge 
 all such statements. 
 
 “ I was appointed as chief superintendent of the office and 
 the works at the building in 1845, have had at least twelve 
 clerks of works and other clerks under my direction, and was 
 responsible for all that was done in every department from that 
 time till the death of Sir Charles Barry in 1860. Being in his 
 confidence I knew every transaction, I can therefore faithfully 
 state that Mr. Pugin had nothing whatever to do with the works 
 during that period, beyond superintending the wood-carving 
 at Thames Bank in the early part of the time, and the extent 
 of his services in that department Mr. Bayne can best explain. 
 Mr. Pugin, however, published in 1845 a proper explanation. 
 With this exception I can state I never saw any drawings of 
 Mr. Pugin’s of the works, except large details for carved 
 work, tile floors, ornamental metal-work and stained glass, 
 which were made by him for the contractors. 
 
 “ I have seen Sir Charles make hundreds of drawings which 
 I have subsequently carried out, so that I cannot he mistaken ; 
 and as to Mr. Pugin’s details from Sir Charles’s small drawings, 
 I ought to remark that it was .c most exceptional case for any 
 to be executed without being altered by Sir Charles. 
 
 With regard to the towers particularly, they were all com- 
 pleted before I left the works, and what remained unfinished 
 at Sir Charles’s death I finished under your directions as archi- 
 tect, and I can say Avith confidence that you must have been 
 fully cognisant of all that took place in the building for at least 
 ten years before Sir Charles’s decease, and can therefore bear out 
 my statement. I may remark that the large number of draw- 
 ings as studies made by Sir Charles for years were modelled 
 
NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTEK. 
 
 87 
 
 from time to time by Mr. Mabey (in whose shop I never knew 
 Mr. Pugin to enter), and the incessant toil of Sir Charles in 
 that respect was far beyond any one’s belief but tliose al)out 
 him, and I am certain that Mr. Pugin had iiothing to do witli 
 them. My knowledge of the whole undertaking was so recog- 
 nized by Sir Charles that it was not an unusual tiling if he 
 came to my office during any temporary absence, for liim t(j 
 leave again without going over the works, as lie always con- 
 sidered my presence indispensable ; I am therefoi-e able to state 
 that I do not believe Mr. Pugin either alone or with Sir 
 Charles was on any occasion in the building without my being 
 present, and when there, the visits were always on the subject 
 of the approval by Sir Charles of specimens of wood-carving, 
 stained glass, tile-flooring, or metal- work — the branches which 
 Mr. Pugin had more immediatel}^ under his detailing. 1 never 
 remember any conversation directly or indirectly on the subject 
 of the structure or its details externally or internally. 
 
 “ I am quite astonished at the outrageous assertions of 
 Mr. E. Pugin, as every one must be with any knowledge of the 
 facts. No one will deny that Mr. Pugin rendered Sir Charles 
 valuable assistance in his department as many others did in 
 theirs, and Sir Charles was not the man not to appreciate it, 
 for he knew far well that in such a gigantic undertaking life 
 was far too short for him to accomplish everything with his 
 own hands. His mind had mastered all its difficulties, and it 
 was for others to assist him in the carrying out the work 
 designed and originated by him. 
 
 “ 1 consider it a monstrous fabrication of Mr. E. Pugin’s from 
 first to last ; I cannot conceive how it is possible he can persist 
 in it, and it grieves me exceedingly to think of the annoyance 
 that it must have given to those immediately connected Avith 
 Sir Charles and the great work in question. 
 
 “ And I remain, yours faithfully, 
 
 “ E. M. Barry, Esq., A.B.A." “ Quarm. 
 
 (m) “ Great Smith Street, Westminster, September, 18G7. 
 
 “ SiR,^ — I was much surprised to see Mr. Burton’s statement, 
 that the late Mr. Pugin designed the whole of the fittings for 
 
 * Addressed to the ‘ Pull Mall Gazette,’ but not inserted. 
 
88 
 
 THE ARCHITECT OF THE 
 
 the Houses of Parliament, and that Sir C. Barry had nothing 
 to do with them. 
 
 “ I can positively contradict this statement. I was the prac- 
 tical superintendent of the works at Millbank, from their com- 
 mencement in January, 1845, to their close in December, 1859. 
 
 “ The whole of the wood-work and carving for the Houses of 
 parliament, and full-sized models and patterns for ornamental 
 metal-work, were made at Thames Bank during this time 
 under my direction, and I necessarily had much knowledge of 
 all that Mr. Pugin did, and can with certainty say he never 
 took part in anything but ornamental detail. - 
 
 “ Mr. Pugin only came occasionally to the works, and almost 
 always accompanied by Sir C. Barry. 
 
 “ Sir Charles was at the works almost daily, when much was 
 doing, and altei ed his designs again and again. 1 had to model 
 everything for his approval and decision, and I can therefore 
 state most decidedly that both Mr. E. AV. Pugin and Air. Burton 
 are wrong in the claims they put forward. Sir Charles used 
 frequently to make designs for all parts of the work in my 
 presence, but I never saw Air. Pugin do anything but orna- 
 mental detail. 
 
 “ I well remember the appearance of the letter in the 
 ‘Builder’ in 1845, in which letter Air. Pugin describes, quite 
 correctly, the position he occujned in his connection with the 
 Houses of Parliament ; and as the actual execution of the work 
 ]>assed through my hands, I fim entitled to speak with con- 
 
 dJie following is from Air. Philip, the well-known archi- 
 tectural sculptor, and shows the opinion of those who actually 
 worked at Thames Bank under Air. Pugin. 
 
 “ Dear Sn:, — Whatever testimony I can give respecting the 
 point at issue in this unfortunate assertion of claims as to 
 the authorship of the Houses of Parliament by the son of the 
 late Air. I'ugin on behalf of his father, I have ]deasure in plac- 
 
 hdence. 
 
 1 am. Sir, yoin'« Ap 
 
 awE, 
 
 “ Practical Snj)erhitendent of the icorhs at Millhank 
 for the Westminster PalaceP 
 
 (n) 
 
 West Pavilion, Hans Place, January 26th, 1808. 
 
NEW PALACE AT WESTMINISTER. 
 
 89 
 
 ing at your disposal. I was introduced by an eminent painter 
 still living to the notice of Mr. Pugin, who engaged me to 
 make models for the guidance of tlie numerous workmen en- 
 gaged in executing the wood-carvings in the workshops at 
 Thames Bank. It was a privilege much prized at tlie time, 
 and not since forgotten, that it was my lot to be in personal 
 communication with Mr. Pugin on nearly all occasions when 
 he visited the works ; his business being to su})])ly designs 
 for the ornamental details of the carving of ceilings. Avail 
 framings, &c., and to see that the models executed during 
 the intervals of his visits had been carried out in accordance 
 and in the spirit of his drawings. That his Avork Avas of the 
 utmost importance, and that his position Avith Sir Charles 
 Barry was of the highest and most intimate character in this 
 special department, there , could not be a shadow of a doubt ; 
 but it Avas also equally clear that Sir Chailes Barry was the 
 chief who exercised the sharpest control not only over iMr. 
 Pugin’s designs, but also of the Avork executed from them. The 
 usual course AA^as that Mr. Pugin visited the works, aAmraging 
 certainly not oftener than once in a fortnight, leaving a great 
 number of sketches executed during the few hours he Avas with 
 us. Sir Charles Barry Avas in the habit of visiting the Avorks 
 two or three times in each week, or oftener ; it continually haj)- 
 pened on these visits that Sir Charles not only set aside and 
 disapproved of Pugin’s designs, but superseded them by designs 
 made by himself. 
 
 “ From the remarks I have heard Mr. Pugin make upon the 
 exterior I cannot imagine that he was either the author, or 
 that he had the power in any way to control it. I believe his 
 work was entirely restricted to making designs for the orna- 
 mental wood-carvings, metal- work, tiles for floors, and furniture 
 generally. 
 
 “ My then and now friend Mr. Clayton was my felloAv- 
 worker. Our occupation necessitated a closer and more unre- 
 served intercourse with him than usually happens to the lot 
 of ordinary assistants. Had Mr. Pugin been the designer of 
 the whole structure, I think some inkling of the fact must 
 have oozed out during the period of two years and a half that 
 Ave were so engaged. I am sure that surprise was our mutual 
 feeling when Mr. Pugin’s claims were advanced. AVorkmen 
 are very keen in discovering AA^ho is the real master. I am 
 sure there Avas no other feeling among the men at that time 
 
90 
 
 THE ARCHITECT OF THE 
 
 but that Sir Charles Barry was the designer and supreme head 
 of the work. 
 
 “ I remain, dear Sir, yours very faithfully, 
 
 “ J. Birnie Philip. 
 
 “ E. M. Barry, Esq., A.B.A.” 
 
 The following is from the head of the well-known firm of 
 Clayton and Bell, and shows, that even in the department 
 specially confided to Mr. Pugin, his subordination to Sir 
 Charles Barry was fully maintained. 
 
 (o) “ 13, Fellows Boad, Haverstoch Eill, 
 
 ^^Jan 24th, 1868. 
 
 “ My dear Sir, — During the years 1846-7 I was engaged 
 at Thames Bank in translating Mr. Pugin’s sketches into the 
 form of models for many of the details of the interior of 
 the Houses of Lords and Commons. 
 
 “ At this period I saw much both of Mr. Pugin and Sir 
 (Riarles Barry, and necessarily had good opportunity of know- 
 ing in what practical form their minds respectively operated 
 upon this phase of the work. I should signally misrepresent 
 myself by uttering one word that might seem to fall short 
 of the highest admiration of Mr. Pugin’s genius ; but — apart 
 from the question as to Sir Charles’s position as architect of 
 the building in the broader sense — I cannot hesitate to say 
 that the impression left upon my mind from the much I wit- 
 nessed in the production of the said details was that Mr. Pugin’s 
 exuberant invention and singular facility of hand were scarcely 
 more active and potent, even in this part of the work, than 
 were Sir Charles’s cooler judgment and control of general 
 effects. These frequent cancellings, modifications, and changes 
 wrought upon Mr. Pugin’s designs by Sir Charles’s counselling, 
 sketching, and restraining influence generally were often start- 
 ling to me by the extent to which they were carried. 
 
 “ Of the many who were at the time similarly engaged with 
 me — including Mr. J. B. Philip and Mr. T. Phyffers — I never 
 heard an opinion that did not admit with enthusiasm the force 
 of Mr. Pugin’s abundant fancy, and with equal warmth the 
 power of Sir Charles’s artistic judgment. 
 
 “ I am, my dear Sir, faithfully yours, 
 
 “ John E. Clayton. 
 
 - Edw. M. Barry, Esq., A.E.A.” 
 
NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTER. 
 
 91 
 
 The following are from the architectural modellers at the 
 New Palace ; — 
 
 (p) 1, 1 a, d 2, Princes-street, Westminster, S.W., 
 
 “ 12^/i Se^ptemher, 18G7. 
 
 “Dear Sir, — HaAong read the letters of Mr. E. W. Pngin in 
 the ‘ Times ’ of the 7th inst., and periodicals before, relating to 
 the late Sir Charles Barry and Mr. A. W. Pngin, I feel it to bo 
 my duty and pleasure to state my knowledge and ex})ei’ience in 
 reference to the subject in question, leaving it with you to use 
 as you think fit. I was employed, as you are aware, as fore- 
 man of the modelling department, at the New Houses of Parlia- 
 ment for sixteen years, engaged by Mr. John Thomas in the 
 year 1842, and during that time principally occu})ied in 
 making the small models, of which I had the entire supci’in- 
 tendence immediately under the direction of Sir Charles Barry, 
 working them out in many cases from his dictation and 
 sketches made upon the spot, diverging frequently so far from 
 the original design as to constitute a new construction of 
 entire masses and parts ; for he was frequently disappointed by 
 the elfect of his designs when worked out upon a small scale 
 in a model, which induced him to make repeated alterations 
 directly upon the model itself, without submitting a drawing ; 
 and all such alterations, which, as I have stated, Avere often im- 
 portant ones, were entirely due to his personal control Avithout 
 the intervention of any other person whatever. No one ever 
 accompanied him excepting his esteemed friend Mr. M'olfe, and 
 I am sure Mr. A. W. Pugin never came with him to see the 
 models, and the workshops were locked up CA^ery evening Avlien 
 I went away, and access rendered impossible, so that he could 
 not have consulted with him about further alterations to be 
 made upon them. The models which I made were of the riA^er 
 front, Victoria Clock and Central Towers, Palace A"ard front, 
 the groin ceilings of the Central and St. Stephen’s Halls, and 
 of the Victoria ToAver, besides numerous other portions of the 
 building ; and on all of these, more especially the river front 
 and towers, it was that his repeated alterations Avere made ; 
 several models Avere made for each, and each model Avas sub- 
 jected to immediate and spontaneous alteration in the manner I 
 have prevdously stated. 
 
 “ I might add Sir Charles Barry’s freedom in design and 
 facility in sketching often impressed me Avith Avonder, and has 
 
92 
 
 THE ARCHITECT OF THE 
 
 left no doubt on my mind that the original source was his own 
 great power. 
 
 “ I have been much surprised to see that Mr. Pugin claims 
 for his father, on the authority of Mr. Burton, ‘ the conception, 
 ‘ the plan, the elevations, the sections, and the details ’ of the 
 Throne in the House of Lords, and states that he made ‘ no 
 ‘ less than three difierent designs for it’ in 1845. 
 
 “ All I can say is that I perfectly remember making the 
 block-model from Sir Charles’s sketches in the modeller’s shop 
 on the river terrace at the works of the New Palace. 
 
 “ Mr. Pugin never came while I was engaged on it, but Sir 
 Charles was with me almost every day superintending my 
 work. The model, after some consideration and minor altera- 
 tions, was settled in accordance with Sir Charles Barry’s draw- 
 ing now photographed. The model was then sent to Mr. Bayne 
 at the Thames Bank workshops. 
 
 “ Subsequently some of the sculptured detail was modelled and 
 loorhed from Sir Charles’s instructions by Mr. Thomas in our 
 shop, just before the House of Lords was completed, and the 
 work was fixed in its place by me. 
 
 “ 1 am, dear Sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 “jEJ. M. Barry, Esq., A.B.A.” “James Mabey. 
 
 (^) “ 62, Walnut-tree Walk, Kennington Boad, Lambeth, 
 
 ^^Jan. 24th, 1868. 
 
 “ Sir, — I was ten years with the late Mr. Thomas, during 
 seven of which I was more or less constantly employed for the 
 Houses of Parliament. 
 
 “ Mr. Mabey was employed in making the small general 
 models of parts of the building, particularly the towers, and 
 my work was principally to prepare the full-size models for the 
 carvers to work from. The method generally adopted in car- 
 rying out the heraldic models for the exterior of the river 
 front and parts of Victoria Tower and other portions of the 
 building of the New Houses of Parliament (many of which 
 I modelled under the late Mr. Thomas), was this ; there was 
 generally a small drawing made in Mr. Barry’s office showing 
 the general design, which was enlarged by Mr. Thomas and 
 others, and the models were then made in the shops full size, 
 Mr. Barry invariably giving his personal attention to them 
 
NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTER. 
 
 93 
 
 before tliey were carved ; and I conscientiously state tliat I 
 never to my knowledge ever saw Mr. Pugin, and certainly 
 never received any instructions from any one excej)t from ]\Ir. 
 Barry and Mr. Thomas, the foreman never allowing anything 
 to be cast for the carver until he had given his final approval. 
 
 “ I am, Sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 “ Thos. P. Garland, 
 
 “ Bev. Dr. Barry, Cheltenham.” “ ■A.rcUledural Modeller. 
 
 (lY.) To these letters, written by those engaged with Sir C. 
 Barry, I have only to add the following statement recently 
 sent to me by Mr. Talbot Bury, in confirmation and illustra- 
 tion of his letters on pp. 16, 17, and based upon intimate 
 knowledge of the facts from the other side. I have thought 
 it right to give it exactly as it stands, although again tlie 
 doing so may involve some slight repetition. 
 
 “ 50, Welhech Street, Cavendish Square, W., Jan. 1, 1868. 
 
 “Eev. Sir, — I have this day, for the first time, seen E. 
 Pugin’s pamphlet entitled ‘ Who was the Art- Architect of 
 ‘ the Houses of Parliament ? ’ in which I find my name so very 
 frequently mentioned, and observations made of such a nature 
 as leaves ^me no other course than to reply to them, and to 
 explain, more fully than I have hitherto done, the real and true 
 positions existing between your father and my old friend 
 A. Welby Pugin. 
 
 “ Although I have not the pleasure of knowing you, except 
 by the controversy in the matter of the Parliament Houses, and 
 as the author of the ‘ Memoirs of Sir Charles Barry,’ still I ven- 
 ture to ask the favour of allowing me a few pages in your 
 ‘ Eeply to E. Pugin’s Pamphlet ’ (which I see advertised) so as 
 to give me an opportunity of defending myself from false and 
 dishonourable statements made in Mr. E. P.’s pamphlet. 
 
 “ May I request your kind indulgence for a few days to pre- 
 pare the MSS. necessary for this purpose ? 
 
 “ I am, yours very faithfully, 
 
 “ The Bev. Alfred Barry, D.D.” “ Talbot Buuy. 
 
 “ In the pamphlet recently published by Mr. E. Pugin, he 
 has thought proper to introduce my name very frequently, and 
 
94 
 
 THE ARCHITECT OF THE 
 
 in sncli a way as demands a further explanation from me, 
 respecting claims he has set up as to the designs for the Houses 
 of Parliament ; and, as his unjustifiable observations and 
 incorrect statements have provoked this reply, he has only 
 himself to thank for it. 
 
 “ It is not my intention to follow the course of proceeding 
 and reasoning which Mr. E. Pugin has adopted in his pamphlet ; 
 as from first to last it is nothing more than special pleading of 
 the whole case, of misstatements of facts, of unwarrantable 
 assumptions, of garbled quotations from the newspaper cor- 
 respondence mingled with unmeasured abuse of those who have 
 no other desire or object in this matter than to do full justice 
 to the employer and employed on the works of the Houses of 
 Parliament. Of necessity, I must be egotistical to explain how 
 I am in a position to advance statements quite at variance 
 with those published in several papers by Mr. E. Pugin ; as 
 well as how I have been able to obtain more information than 
 himself, and therefore can explain the several small entries 
 in my friend’s pocket-books, which have been put forth as 
 ‘ extracts from diaries,’ and considered as confirmations strong 
 of his own conclusions. 
 
 “ The most confidential intimacy existed between A. Welby 
 Pugin and myself from the time when I was articled as pupil 
 to his father ; and, on my leaving his father’s office, this 
 intimacy became closer from the similarity of our tastes 
 generally, as well as of our studies in the class of art we were 
 most attached to, and he was always with me at my house 
 when in town, (as his aunt had taken apartments for him at 
 Eamsgate after the death of his father and mother in 1833). 
 He married a second time at the end of 1834, and removed in 
 1835 to a house at Salisbury, which he had built by a legacy 
 left him by his aunt. Miss Welby. 
 
 “In the year 1835, when Mr, E. Pugin was not one year old, 
 these designs and drawings to which I have referred as having 
 been made by A. W. Pugin and myself for Mr. Gillespie Graham 
 were prepared, and my friend Pugin was then likewise engaged 
 in making drawings of ornamental carved - work for the 
 Grammar Schools at Birmingham for Mr. Barry, whom he 
 had only recently known ; Mr. A. W. Pugin was then employed, 
 both by Mr. Graham and Mr. Barry, on other works than those 
 of the Houses of Parliament, which accounts for a confusion 
 in the statements put forth in Mr. E. Pugin’s pamphlet as 
 
NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTEP. 
 
 95 
 
 extracts from A. W. Pugin’s ‘diary’ (page 18 to 21). But 
 I have no faith in the correctness of these said ‘ extracts,’ and 
 the deductions drawn from them are proved to he incorrect. 
 Pugin, at that time and for years afterwards, never kept a 
 regular ‘ diary ; ’ he certainly made occasional entries in a small 
 pocket-book, which served him for diary, ledger and all ; and in 
 Perrey’s hook of ‘ Pecollections of A. W. Pugin ’ (page 242), he 
 states, in giving extracts from his small dmr?/ of 1887, ‘unfor- 
 ‘ tunately a great portion of his (Mr. A. W. P.’s) memoranda 
 ‘ prior to that date had been lost.’ This he heard from Mr. E. 
 Pugin, who gave him all the information and documents respect- 
 ing his father, from which he edited the ‘ Memoirs.’ 
 
 “It is certainly extraordinary, that, on leaving Pamsgatc 
 shortly after the death of his father, and in removing the 
 furniture and effects to three different houses, the so-called 
 ‘ diary ’ of 1835 should not have come to light. It could not he 
 found in 1861, when Mr. Eerrey wrote his hook ; and, when 
 Mr. E. Pugin called on me on the 11th of August, 1867, he 
 stated to me that he could find ‘ no information or record of how 
 ‘ his father was engaged in 1835.’ Whence comes so oppor- 
 tunely this diary which no one has heard of before ? 
 
 “As regards Pugin’s working on Mr. Barry’s competition 
 drawings for the Houses of Parliament (excepting as I have 
 before explained in my letter to the ‘ Pall Mall Gazette ’), he 
 was not engaged in any way in designing or drawing the plans, 
 sections, or elevations. This I can positively assert, from his own 
 statements to me ; he had nothing whatever to do with them ; 
 and he has likewise told me that he never even suggested to 
 Mr. Barry the principal features of either of the fronts or of the 
 sky-line of the building, such as the Victoria Tower, the Clock 
 Tower, or the Central Hall, but that he was employed solely in 
 the way he states in his public letter to the ‘ Builder ’ in 1845. 
 
 “In the ‘Life of Sir Charles Barry,’ Hr. Barry gives my 
 friend Pugin all the credit which he ever claimed himself in 
 this building ; he never put forward so absurd an assumption 
 as the claim to being the ‘ art-architect ’ to the Houses of Parlia- 
 ment ; he had too much sense to invent so unreal a title, and far 
 too much honesty to assume it even had it been suggested to him. 
 
 “ He always expressed himself happy in the employment, 
 and fortunate in having it in a pecuniary light ; as he not only 
 received liberal payment for his drawings of details, but he 
 derived a large income from the interest he had in the metal 
 
THE ARCHITECT OP THE 
 
 9f) 
 
 works at Birmingham, where all work of that nature for the 
 Houses of Parliament was executed. 
 
 “ I was frequently at his house at Chelsea (where he lived 
 after he left Salisbury), and afterwards at Eamsgate ; I saw all 
 the drawings he had in hand, and knew their purposes and 
 destinations. When he was in town he made his drawings and 
 appointments at my house as though it were his own. 
 
 “ As regards Mr. E. Pugin, he personally can know little of 
 his father’s work for Sir Charles Barry ; he was an infant when 
 the competition took place, he was at school until sixteen, and 
 he was only eighteen on the death of his father in 1852. He had 
 not then left school more than two years, and, therefore, could 
 have seen little more than the drawings for the ‘ paper-cases,’ 
 the ‘ inkstands,’ ‘ umbrella-stands,’ ‘ scrapers,’ and some furni- 
 ture, &c., &c., of which he makes so much. 
 
 “ A. W. Pugin felt annoyance at the statement published in 
 the ‘Builder ’ in 1845, which he said gave him more credit for 
 the design of the building than he could claim ; he came to 
 town immediately he saw it, and called on Mr. Barry to re- 
 pudiate any knowledge of the authorship, or of its being 
 published, until he saw it ; he then wrote the explanation 
 referred to in my letter of September the 18th, 1867, published 
 in the ‘ Times ’ newspaper. 
 
 “ In contradiction of this Mr. E. Pugin has published a letter 
 bearing the name of ‘ John Mares,’ stating, that ‘ his wife was 
 ‘ residing at St. Augustine’s Grange when Mr. Pugin returned 
 ‘ from London,’ and says, ‘ it is impossible to describe the state 
 ‘ of prostration in which he entered the house.” In reply to her 
 inquiries as to its cause he said, ‘ I have been up all night — 
 
 ‘ Barry is in an awful state respecting the reports that have 
 ‘ oozed out about my being the architect to the Plouses, and he 
 ‘ wants me to write a letter to save his reputation ; it is gone if 
 ‘ I do not, and I have no alternative.’ 
 
 “ I am sorry to be obliged to affirm that this statement is en- 
 tirely at variance with facts which I clearly remember. It does not 
 agree with my knowledge of the circumstances before the letter 
 was written ; for Pugin came straight to my house as soon as 
 he saw the paragraph in the ‘ Builder ; ’ he then went to Mr. 
 Barry and returned to my house where the letter was actually 
 written, nor did he return to Eamsgate till two days afterwards, 
 or come up again at all on this matter. Nor does it agree with 
 my remembrance of the circumstances after the letter was 
 
NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTER. 
 
 97 
 
 written, for I well remember that he did not return home that 
 night : he dined with me, and we went to the theatre the same 
 evening, he being in remarkably good spirits. We breakfasted 
 and dined together the following day ; he expressed himself 
 very glad that he had been able to set the matter right with 
 Mr. Barry, as the loss of the money paid him for the drawings 
 of details was of great importance to him. When we parted 
 he was in excellent spirits, and I saw nothing of ‘ prostration ’ 
 in perspective. 
 
 “ Mr. E. Pugin states (p. xiii.), ‘ I have heard these words 
 ‘ from his own mouth (his father’s) ; “ T made Barry’s designs 
 ‘ “ for 400 guineas and Graham gave me 300 guineas for his.” ’ 
 Now I am soriy to have to tell Mr. E. Pugin that as this 
 assertion is untrue, his father never could have been guilty of 
 making it. Pugin did not have 400 guineas from Mr. Barry ; 
 and he told me that the amount he charged for sketches in 18 )5 
 and part of 1830 was 120Z., which he called a liberal payment 
 for the work done. For drawings of all kinds made in the years 
 1835, 1836, and 1837, Pugin did not receive over 300Z. Know- 
 ing, as I did, all my friend’s money transactions, I yan make 
 this assertion. 
 
 “ As regards the letters Mr. E. Pugin has published, they 
 absolutely prove nothing but that Mr. A. W. Pugin was seen 
 drawing details for Sir Charles Barry’s Houses of Parliament. 
 All this was fully and freely admitted by him ; and in Dr. 
 Barry’s ‘ Memoirs ’ of his father, he has done ample justice to 
 the talents and memory of my old friend : he has, in the most 
 open and considerate way, pointed out the relative positions of 
 Sir C. Barry and Mr. Pugin, and the sincere friendship which 
 existed between them until death. 
 
 “ And what are these letters that Mr. E. Pugin publishes ? 
 Several of them are anonymous. That of an ‘ Ex M.P.’ is worth- 
 less as regards evidence. That of Mr. ‘ Grieves ’ is the same ; 
 he knew Pugin was engaged on detail drawings for the ‘ Houses,’ 
 and speaks of his talents for Gothic architecture. Mr. Shaw’s 
 real acquaintance with Pugin began after 1844, when all the 
 general drawings of the Houses had long been done, and the 
 building nearly up ; in short, all the other letters are those of 
 unprofessional friends or persons employed by Mr. E. Pugin. 
 
 “ The real fact of the matter is, that Pugin worked for Sir 
 C. Barry as an}^ other clever draughtsman may have done, and 
 in this respect his assistance was always much valued by his 
 
 H 
 
TUK Al^CIIlTPXrr OF THE 
 
 <J8 
 
 employer ; hut if we admit his son’s claim, that all tliat is good 
 in tlie Houses of Parliament is due to his father, how does it 
 happen that Pugin’s design which lie prepared in the name of 
 J\lr. Graham, and in which he was perfectly free and unfettered, 
 was not even one of the four to which premiums were awarded, 
 and, indeed, it was scarcely noticed at all? I am grieved to 
 see, that in his haste to advance claims which arc altogether 
 unwarranted, ]Mr. E. Pugin pays so little honour to his father’s 
 memory, and places so small a value on his honour, as to inform 
 the world that every statement made hy his father to myself 
 and others, and puldished V)y liim in the public press, were 
 utterly and deliberately untrue. I unhesitatingly reject this 
 calumny on my old friend, and cannot sufficiently express my 
 regret that it should have fuufinated from his son. I must also 
 ex]iress my opinion, that had iMr. E. Pugin simply desired to 
 seek justice for his fattier, he would not have delayed his claim 
 so long after his death and that of Sir G. Parry ; he would also 
 have hesitated to mix u]) his assertions with extravagant de- 
 preciations of the designs of some of our first architects for the 
 New T.<aw (kmrts, and would specially have avoided the dis- 
 play in the newspapers of his own talents, by suggesting altera- 
 tions in the building for which he claims credit for his father. 
 
 50 Wclhecli-streef, Cavendish -square^ 
 “ January 4///, 1868.” 
 
 1’albot Pury. 
 
 This (dear and detailed statement, coming from a gentle- 
 man, who was in iMr. A. W. Pugin’s confidence, and who 
 therefore viewed the matter from an entirely different point 
 of view, has a special value in confirmation of the evidence 
 so abundantlv given by those who watched the formation of 
 my father’s designs, or who worked in their execution. With 
 this the case might be closed. 
 
 (V.) But, in order to leave no part of the subject un- 
 tomdied, it has been thought desirable, at the expenditure of 
 considerable time and trouble, to make a detailed examina- 
 tion of the vdiole of the existing drawings. This examination 
 has been conducted by iPr. E. M. Barry, and I subjoin his 
 report of the results. It must not be forgotten, that v'e offered 
 
NEW PALACE AT WES^l'MINSTER. 
 
 99 
 
 long ago io produce these and any other documents on the sub- 
 ject, which might be called, if the matter had been referred to 
 the Institute of Bidtish Architects. 
 
 (A) “Estimate drawings'' referred to by Mr. Wolfe and Mr. 
 Banks as those on ivhich Mr. A. W. Pugin was employed 
 immediately after the competition. 
 
 Mr. E. Pugin states, on p. 19 of his pamphlet, that these 
 details contain “ the full-sized drawings of the features them- 
 ‘‘ selves, and of each separate component part thereof with 
 “ their construction and application distinctly delineated.” 
 
 This is in the first place a very inaccurate description of 
 the drawings in question, which are such as architects usually 
 prepare for being estimated from, showing enough of the 
 details to guide the surveyor as to their cost, but requiring 
 an immense amount of supplementary details and instruc- 
 tions, before the work can be carried out. To illustrate this, 
 I may state that the estimate drawings appear to have been 
 less than 200 in number ; and the working drawings, from 
 which the building was actually carried out, exceed 5000. 
 
 My father was not in the habit of inking-in his own draw- 
 ings. He originated them, and drew them out in pencil, and 
 they were then sent into his office to be inked-in, tinted, 
 and finished. This was his custom during the whole of 
 my experience, and Mr. Banks tells me that the estimate 
 drawings were prepared (as it is natural to suppose they 
 would have been) in the same way, and that Sir Charles was 
 incessantly at work upon them, although his touch was 
 necessarily obliterated by inking-in. The fact therefore that 
 some of these drawings show in their inldng-in, traces of 
 Mr. Pugin’s hand, and others those of Mr. Banks, Mr. Wright 
 and others, proves absolutely nothing, except that these 
 gentlemen were my father’s assistants at the time. 
 
 Whatever these drawings were, and by whomsoever pre- 
 pared is, however, altogether beside the question raised now, 
 for they do not agree in a single particular, except as to 
 general plan (and even this has undergone many important 
 
100 
 
 THE ARCHITECT OF THE 
 
 alterations) with the building as it exists. Every portion 
 of it has been re-designed, many parts (as we know) again 
 and again. 
 
 (B) Working Drawings. 
 
 The working drawings for the Palace are in my possession, 
 and I have carefully loolced through them. They are (as I 
 have said) more than 5000 in number, and contain designs and 
 details of every portion of the building, even to the full-sized 
 sections of mouldings and drawings of tracery. None of these 
 are by Mr. Pugin, except about 70 for internal fittings of the 
 House of Lords, and some of its offices. There is included in 
 the above a set of details by him for the throne,* and there 
 are also drawings for ornamental metal-work, and for the ' 
 tiles for the floors generally, the arrangement of which was 
 designed by Sir Charles, and the tiles themselves designed 
 by Mr. Pugin. A careful examination confirms in every 
 particular the statements made in my father’s memoir 
 respecting his assistance, and shows that with the design 
 of the building generally Pugin had nothing to do. 
 
 ]\rr. E. Pugin makes a great point of his father having 
 made a drawing for a pair of unimportant iron gates to the 
 terrace, and demands that, if it exists, it should be produced. 
 
 I have just discovered it, and it would have been produced 
 with all the other drawings, if Mr. E. Pugin had chosen to 
 have it so. It is simply a detail drawing of a pair of wrought- 
 iron gates, and has, no doubt, been prepared by Pugin from 
 a smaller drawing of my father’s. Mr. E. Pugin says that this 
 drawing will prove that other designs were supplied to Sir 
 Charles, overlooking, as is not unusual with him, that the 
 vfordi design'' does not occur in m3' father’s letter on the 
 subject, which simply acknowledges the receipt of the draw- 
 ing and his approval of it. 
 
 * Theie is, ho\vever, the general design fur the throne as it now exists 
 drawn out to a scale of 4 feet to an inch in Sir Charles’s own hand. See 
 frontispiece. Even the details above referred to were not carried out without 
 modifications, and portions of the work were both modelled and executed by 
 the late Mr. Thomas. 
 
NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTER. 
 
 101 
 
 I may mention that these drawings have not been used lor 
 years. They are very bulky, and have been stowed away in 
 a roof not easy of access. Some of them I have not seen for 
 a long time, and many of them, e.g., the estimate drawings, 
 I have now (Jan. 18G8) seen for the first time. Mr. Wolfe 
 had not seen them when he compiled his statements, which 
 they thoroughly confirm. It is strange, with Mr. Tl. Pugin’s 
 anxiety that his father slionld have his ‘Mair share” of credit, 
 that he should not have availed himself of onr repeated offers 
 to produce these drawings, and all other documents before 
 a proper tribunal. I may here give the names of all my 
 father’s assistants whose work I can recognise in these draw- 
 ings, and those of them who are yet alive can, I am sure, 
 confirm all that has been said by us in this controveisy. 
 Their names are as follows : the late Mr. Thomas, Mr. Banks, 
 Mr. Gibson, Mr. Wright, Mr. Groves, Mr. Meeson, Mr. Somers 
 Clarke, Mr. Biakspcar, Mr. Kennedy, IMr. Murray, Mr. 
 Barrett, Mr. Clerihew, Mr. Payne, Mr. Quarm, Mr. Buddie, 
 Mr. Kerr, Mr Deville, Mr. Walton, and Mr. Boiighton. 
 
 E. M. Barry. 
 
 The time needed for this examination has delayed the 
 appearance of these pages. But those who desire to under- 
 stand the actual state of the evidence will hardly regret the 
 delay. The accuracy of the report we have offered to submit 
 to professional examination; and, if that accuracy be esta- 
 blished, the confirmation of the statements made throughout 
 by us is most striking. 
 
 I now conclude this examination of the question. While 
 I still hold that the only right way of settling the question 
 is the one which we have urged on our assailant, I yet trust 
 that, in putting on record once for all, tliis statement of facts, 
 we shall have done our duty to my father’s memory. It is 
 well, in conclusion, briefly to sum up the wliole case. 
 
102 
 
 THE ARCHITECT OF THE 
 
 First, as to a 'priori probability. — I pass by the utter vio- 
 lence, Avhich such a supposition does to my father’s cliaracter, 
 as it was known to all those who had acquaintance with him, 
 or as it paints itself in the simple facts of that life, which it 
 has been my duty to record. I almost feel as though it were 
 derogatory to him gravely to defend him from such an 
 assailant as Mr. E. W. Piio-in. 
 
 But there are a few leading points, which should not be 
 passed over. 
 
 Tlie first is this— that the competition design and the 
 actually existing building are, in all essential features, 
 entirely at variance with the principles of design laid down 
 by My. A. W. Pugin with his characteristic decision and 
 energy, and adopted by many Gothicists of the pi-esent day. 
 The regularity, the symmetry, the subordination of beauty of 
 separate features to unity of effect — -all these were as 
 distasteful to Mr. A. W. Pugin, as they were familiar and 
 acceptable to 8ir C. Barry. Yet we are asked, against all 
 evidence, to attribute to the one a design which naturally, 
 almost without evidence, would have been traced to the 
 other. 
 
 The next is the well-known fact that my father was un- 
 usually anxious, and even fastidious in his anxiety, for per- 
 fection of detail. Those who have ever worked with him 
 well remember that this fastidiousness grew upon him almost 
 to a fault, causing frequent alterations and involving almost 
 endless trouble. Yet we are asked to believe that he would 
 give up to another — a man of wholly different taste from his ' 
 own — an almost unlimited control over the structural details 
 of a building which was to bear his name. 
 
 The third point is that the design for the existing building 
 was (as a matter of fact) actually matured between 1837 and 
 1844, at a time when I\lr. A. W. Pugin was, by the confession 
 of all parties, altogether removed from the scene of action. 
 The competition design was almost superseded ; the estimate 
 drawings of 1836 were laid aside, as soon as they had served 
 their special purpose. During all this time there was a mind 
 
NEW PALACE AT WEISTMINSTEH. 
 
 103 
 
 at work, moulding, developing, altering the design, making 
 itself felt in every line of the building. Whose was that 
 mind if it was not Sir C. Barry’s ? 
 
 Lastly, since ]\[r. A. W. Pugin’s death in 1852, a very large 
 portion of the building, including the Great Towei-s, has been 
 designed and completed. Nor have I ever heard tliat tlun-e 
 is a different spirit reigning in the former part of the work 
 from that which is visible in the latter. Whose (I again ask) 
 was this guiding spirit ? Mr. E. W. Pugin makes a strange 
 pretence to meet this difficulty, by stating that he can name 
 some “great unknown,” who was a second Pugin to my 
 father, and who must have been, if we would account for tlie 
 unity of effect on this theory, literally a reproduction of 
 the first? Is it possible tliat he can think to gain credit 
 with any one by sucli mysterious and hazy generalities? 
 If “ the unknown ” exist, wliy has he not been named already ? 
 But the Yei'j attempt shows that he feels the fatal force of 
 this simple consideration, and would meet it somehow at all 
 hazards. 
 
 But I am aware that a priori improbability is not a per- 
 fectly sure and tangible argument, and that it must give way, 
 if positive evidence be brought against it. How, therefore, 
 in the next place, stands the evidence? 
 
 I. With regard to the competition draicings, Mi-. E. W. 
 Pugin rests his case, first, on the evidence of Mr. Talbot Bury. 
 That gentleman directly contradicts him. He next adduces 
 a number of letters from various persons, not one of whom 
 had personal knowledge of the subject ; these contain nothing 
 but second-hand assertions, to which no one who understands 
 evidence would even listen. He then quotes from Mr. A. W. 
 Pugin’s diaries entries, some of which the very dates show to 
 be irrelevant, while the rest are confused and inconclusive. 
 This is absolutely the whole of his evidence. 
 
 On the other hand, I adduce first, the detailed and interest- 
 ing testimony of Mr. Wolfe, from intimate personal know- 
 ledge of Sir C. Barry’s whole work ; next, the })lain evidence 
 
THE AKCHITECT OF THE 
 
 lUi 
 
 of Mr. Talbot Bury, based on an almost equally intimate 
 knowledge of Mr. A. W. Pugin ; lastly, the declarations of 
 Mr. Pugin himself, made emphatically and decisively, and 
 testified to by Mr. Bury, Mr. Ferrey, Mr. Eichardson, the 
 Rev. B. Webb and the Editor of the ‘ Builder.’ 
 
 II. With regard to Mr. A. W. Pugins subsequent emi^loy- 
 ment by Sir C. Barry, Mr. E. Pugin first quotes entries from 
 the diary, which, even if correct, prove nothing more than 
 what has been always acknowledged ; he next dwells on 
 certain letters of my father’s to Mr. A. W. Pugin, of which * 
 the first two merely contain a reference to the detailed work 
 on the estimate drawings, which were generally laid aside ; 
 the third is so quoted as to produce an impression entirely 
 at variance with the fact, and the others refer to minute 
 details. 
 
 This is his whole evidence, eked out by reckless suppo- 
 sitions and inferences. 
 
 On the other liand, I first adduce the direct and repeated 
 testimony of Mr. A. W. Pugin himself, not only in the pub- 
 lished letter of ISdb, but in private correspondence, effectually 
 disposing of the theory, by which it is sought to explain 
 that letter away. I next add statements from Mr. Wolfe 
 and Mr. Charles Barry, who saw my father’s earlier work on 
 the design of the actual building, and of Mr. E. M. Barry, 
 whose close connexion with the work relates to the portion 
 erected since 1850. After this comes a series of letters from 
 almost every living person \\ho took any important share in 
 executing the work under Sir C. Barry’s direction. Next, a 
 fresh communication from Mr. Talbot Bury, drawn from him 
 by Mr. E. W. Pugin’s attack, and supplementing the former. 
 Lastly, a report of a detailed examination of the actual 
 drawings, which drawings we offered to submit to the Council 
 of the Institute of British Architects. 
 
 On the subsidiary matter of the “ missing letters,” of which 
 so much is made, it has been my duty to show (in the Ap- 
 pendix) that it is but of secondary importance, if the state- 
 
NEW PALACE AT WLSTMINSTEK. 
 
 105 
 
 ment of the case be perfectly accurate, and that this statement 
 is not based on such evidence as to establish it with any 
 certainty. 
 
 Those who will take the trouble to examine this evidence 
 thoroughly, must come to the conclusion that Mr. A. W. 
 Pugin^s work was simply that of an able and confidential 
 subordinate, and that Sir Charles Barry was in all points the 
 true architect of the great building to which he devoted his 
 life. 
 
 It may seem to those, who can judge of the question by 
 professional knowledge, that we have given too much notice to 
 Mr. E. W. Pugin’s attack. It is doubtless true, (as Mr. 
 Digby Wyatt has lately said) that the stamp or “ mint mark ” 
 on Sir Charles’s works is too plain to be mistaken. But 
 reputation is affected by popular judgment, and that can be 
 based only on direct and detailed evidence. It has, there- 
 fore, been my duty to draw up this statement of facts and 
 evidences; I leave it with all confidence to the judgment of 
 my readers. 
 
106 
 
 THE ARCHITECT OF THE 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 So much stress has been laid in the present controversy on 
 certain letters of my father to Mr. A. W. Pugin, which are 
 said to have been lent by Mr. E. W. Pugin to Sir C. Barry 
 in 1860, that I feel bound to notice the subject here. 
 
 Mr. E. W. Pugin’s statement is as follows (see pp. viii.-x. of ' 
 his pamphlet) : — 
 
 (a) That at an interview in February, 1860, Sir C. Barry 
 was informed that these letters were in Mr. E. W. Pugin’s 
 hands, and that, on hearing this, he betrayed ‘‘ confusion and 
 ‘‘ distress 
 
 (h) That he stated that all Mr. A. W. Pugin’s letters to 
 him had been destroyed ; 
 
 (c) That he requested the loan of these letters for perusal, 
 and that he afterwards broke the promise, which he then 
 made, of returning them. 
 
 JSTow it is clear that, if this statement were true and ac- 
 curate in every point, it could but be of secondary importance 
 in the present controversy. It has been forced into a 
 prominent position, and skilfully worked up into a factitious 
 importance, because it excites odium against my father’s 
 memory and attracts the attention of those, who have not 
 patience to examine the whole facts of the case. 
 
 It will be my object, first to reduce the question to its 
 true importance, examining Mr. E. W. Pugin’s statements 
 on his own showing, and assuming, for the sake of argument, 
 that they are correct. I must then point out the insufiicient 
 nature of the testimony, on which these statements rest. I 
 take them seriatim. 
 
 What is to be argued from the uneasiness which Sir Charles 
 is said to have shown ? 
 
 That he would be unwilling to see published by any one 
 
NEW PALACE AT WES'l'MlNSTER. 
 
 107 
 
 his private letters to a confidential friend and assistant 
 written with perfect unreserve, full of allusions to living i)er- 
 sons, and to controversies still pending, may easily be con- 
 ceived. It is obvious moreover, by Mr. E. W. Pugin’s own 
 account, that he approached tlie interview in a hostile spirit, 
 and Sir Charles must have been aware, that, if such letters 
 existed, they would probably be used somewhat recklessly, 
 if not unfairly. That he may therefore have felt an uneasi- 
 ness, which can be represented as “confusion and distress” 
 is probable enough. But it is a gratuitous assumption to 
 infer that this uneasiness had the particular cause which 
 Mr. E. W. Pugin assigns to it, and to suppose that these 
 letters contained matter which is not found in the letters 
 actually preserved, on the part of Sir C. Barry and of 
 Mr. A. Pugin — nay, which is in all essential points utterly 
 at variance with the relations there disclosed. 
 
 Secondly, What is to be inferred from the statement at- 
 tributed to Sir Charles, that he had destroyed all Mr. A. W. 
 Pugin’s letters to him ? This was simply in accordance with 
 his almost universal practice — a practice which has caused 
 us great difficulty in the preparation of his biography. All 
 the numerous letters, which he received from eminent persons 
 at home and abroad, have perished, with but very few ex- 
 cejDtions. Of Mr. A. W. Pugin’s letters we have found com- 
 paratively few, and even these were stored away among many 
 miscellaneous papers, and apparently forgotten. The in- 
 ference that any letters bearing upon the present controversy 
 had been destroyed, because they contained matter dangerous 
 to Sir C. Barry’s fame, is again wholly gratuitous. 
 
 Lastly, What may be inferred from the course which Sir 
 Charles Barry is said to have adopted? The slur, which 
 the imputation throws upon his character, is serious enough, 
 although Mr. E. W. Pugin seems to think that Ave ought to 
 take it with perfect unconcern. But in relation to the con- 
 troversy, it can but be considered, at most, as exciting a 
 certain amount ol* suspicion. Decisive on the subject it can 
 never be. Mr. E. W. Pugin has now (it appears) a large 
 
108 
 
 THE MCHITECT OF THE 
 
 number of letters. Is it possible that they will not contain 
 enough to prove his case, if that case be true ? The positive 
 testimony adduced from Mr. A. W. Pugin’s own letters and 
 statements, strengthened by such evidence as that of Mr. 
 Wolfe on the one side, and of Mr. Talbot Bury on the other, 
 cannot be shaken by vague inferences of what certain missing 
 letters may be supposed to have contained. 
 
 Taking therefore the case on Mr. E. W. Pugin’s own 
 showing, it has this amount of weight, and this only. 
 
 But I feel myself compelled to remark on the testimony 
 by which the whole charge is sustained ; and I think I am 
 justified in so doing by the fact that it was never brought for- 
 ward till after my father’s death, when direct counter evidence 
 became impossible. Mr. E. W. Pugin must remember that 
 he opened this controversy by an imputation of falsehood 
 against my father. I believe that those who read it will 
 consider that he has been treated on the whole with great 
 forbearance. But, on such a subject as this, I am forced to 
 call attention to points which must strike any impartial ex- 
 aminer of the evidence. 
 
 The whole statement rests solely on the evidence of Mr. E. 
 W. Pugin himself. 
 
 Now, in the first place, it seems not a little strange, that 
 he should have waited for eight years after his father’s death 
 (during which time, it would appear, he was indignant at 
 Sir 0. Barry’s treatment of himself and his family), before he 
 put forward his statements at all. It is also strange that, 
 when he put into Sir Charles’s hands, as he states, seventy-six 
 letters, he should have silently retained many other letters, 
 of which he declines to specify the number or to give copies, 
 but of which he has already published thirty-nine. Nor has 
 any account been as yet given why the accusation now made 
 was not made in the period (about three months) intervening 
 between the alleged interview and Sir C. Barry’s death, or for 
 more than seven years after that event. It is also clear that 
 there is a difficulty in establishing a sufficient motive to induce 
 Sir Charles to take such a course as the one imputed to him. 
 
NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTER. 
 
 109 
 
 The ‘ Pall Mall Gazette,’ a journal usually well informed in 
 such matters, asserts that in such letters there was a joint 
 ownership. But it is not questioned by any one that an 
 injunction might have been obtained to prevent the publica- 
 tion of the letters in question. It would have been a simple 
 thing either to claim the custody, or to prohibit the pub- 
 lication. 
 
 On our part, after diligent search and careful enquiry, we 
 can find no trace of the letters referred to, nor can we dis- 
 cover that any one, even of those who were in the most con- 
 fidential relations with Sir Charles, ever saw them in his 
 hands, or ever heard him speak of them. 
 
 It is impossible, on principles of common fairness, to accept 
 a charge so serious, as established under such circumstances 
 against one who can no longer defend himself. Mr. E. W. 
 Pugin has assumed, without any ground, that we accept his 
 statement, and that we defend an admitted breach of faith. 
 We have remarked on his statements without admitting them, 
 for it is useful to estimate their value on his own showing. 
 But I think I may be excused if I decline to accept them as 
 proved, especially when the examination of Mr. E. W. Pugin’s 
 statements has shown in him such singular inaccuracy, both 
 of remembrance and quotation. 
 
 It is a matter of no great consequence whether we have 
 been right or wrong in our way of dealing with Mr. E. W. 
 Pugin in this matter. But here also there has been a suffi- 
 cient amount of misrepresentation. 
 
 It is asked, why we did not at once say, whether these 
 letters were or were not forthcoming. At the beginning of 
 the controversy, before we had experience of the style in 
 which it was to be carried on, my brother ]\Ir. E. M. Barry 
 pretty clearly intimated that they were not to be found. He 
 says in the ‘Pall Mall Gazette’ of Aug. 2*2nd, 1867 — ‘‘My 
 “ father habitually destroyed all private letters addressed to 
 “ him, and in seeking materials for his biography we have had 
 “occasion to regret the dearth of materials caused by this 
 “ custom.” But, as the correspondence proceeded, it was 
 
no 
 
 THE ARCHITECT OF THE 
 
 thought (wisely or unwisely) that we ought to be more 
 guarded on the subject. We have never implied that we had 
 the letters but we did not let our antagonist know whether 
 we had them or not, till we had tried to obtain from him a 
 distinct statement of the time and place of the alleged inter- 
 view. As soon as he applied directly to us, we immediately 
 offered all information, provided he would give us the means 
 of identifying such letters, if they could be found. On 
 partially obtaining this, we at once made diligent search, and 
 gave explicit information of its results, including the discovery 
 of the letters of Mr. A. W. Pugin, referred to on pp. 52-58, of ' 
 the existence of which we were entirely ignorant. I subjoin all 
 the important letters of the correspondence, of which Mr. E. 
 VV. Pugin has printed one. It might or might not have been 
 better to have acted without waiting for a formal demand : 
 but this has little bearing on the real matter at issue. 
 
 15, Bedford Row, London, W.C., Oct. 8, 1867. 
 
 Sm, — I wrote by the direction of Mr. E. W. Pugin, on the 
 1st inst., to the Rev. Alfred Barry, requesting him to deliver 
 to me on Mr. Pugin’s behalf the letters which he had lent to 
 the late Sir Charles Barry ; and on the other side I send 3^11 
 copy of a letter which I have received from the Rev. Alfred 
 Barry in reply. I now, therefore, have to request you to 
 deliver to me the letters in question. To save you trouble 
 I will, on your making an appointment for that purpose, attend 
 at any time and place you may name to receive the letters and 
 give you a discharge for them as Mr. Pugin’s solicitor. Re- 
 questing an early reply, 
 
 I am your obedient servant, 
 
 G. J. PuRRANT. 
 
 E. M. Barry, Esq., 21, Abingdon Street, S.W. 
 
 * Mr. E. W. Pugin says that we have done so, but he would he troubled to 
 quote any words of ours wliich can prove his assertion. 
 
NKW PALACE AT WESTMINSTEPv. 
 
 1 1 1 
 
 (COPY.) 
 
 Park House, Cheltenham, Oct. 4, 18G7. 
 
 Sir, — I have just found yonr letter (of the 1st) awaiting me 
 on my return home. I beg to say in reply that I am not one 
 of my father’s executors, and that all his papers are in their 
 hands. 
 
 My brother (Mr. E. M. Barry) is the proper person to whom 
 to apply, and he will, I doubt not, give due answer to the 
 application either directly or through his solicitors. 
 
 I presume you have been misled b}^ my published letter 
 stating that my father’s diaries and official letters * are in my 
 hands. 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 Alfred Barry. 
 
 G. -I. Durrant, Esq. 
 
 5, BilHt( r Street, E.C., Oct. 15, 18G7. 
 
 Sir, — Mr. E. M. Barry has been away from town, and has only 
 just received your letter of the 8th inst., asking on Mr. Pugin’s 
 behalf for delivery up of certain letters. 
 
 Mr. E. M. Barry has forwarded me your letter as solicitor to 
 the executors of the late Sir Charles Barry. That gentleman 
 has now been dead upwards of seven years, and his executors 
 are his two sons, Mr. Charles Barry and Mr. Edward Middleton 
 Bariy, his nephew Mr. William Henry Barry, and my partner, 
 his brother-in-law, Mr. Thomas Grueber. 
 
 I should feel obliged by your informing me for their guidance 
 when and where your client lent the letters, he alleges to have 
 lent to Sir Charles Barry ; what those letters were ; by whom 
 they were written ; and how they came into your client’s pos- 
 session ? 
 
 Directly I receive this information, I will see my clients and 
 communicate with you. 
 
 I am. Sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 James Cooper. 
 
 G J. Durrant, Esq., Bedford Bow. 
 
 * In the original letter the ^YOl■ds were “ diarie.s, &c.” 
 
112 
 
 THE ARCHITECT OF THE 
 
 15, Bedford Row, London, W.C , Oct. 17, 1867. 
 
 Sir, — I Rave this morning seen my client on the subject of 
 yonr letter to me of the loth inst. 
 
 The letters which he requires the executors of the late Sir 
 Charles Barry to deliver up are seventy-six letters written and 
 sent by him to the late Mr. A. W. Pugin, and which letters 
 my client lent to Sir Charles Barry, as matter of courtesy to 
 him and at his particular request, in order that he might 
 gratify a wish he had to read them over. 
 
 Sir Charles Barry promised to return the letters to my client 
 immediately after he should have perused them. 
 
 If your clients, under these circumstances, are disposed to 
 take the extraordinary and ungracious course of now disputing * 
 my client’s title to the letters in question (as you seem to inti- 
 mate) that point must be discussed before a legal tribunal, to 
 which Mr. Pugin will not hesitate to refer it. 
 
 I have no further remark to make, but I beg to reiterate my 
 demand for the letters, and to require your clients’ immediate 
 compliance therewith. 
 
 I am Sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 G. J. Durrant. 
 
 James Cooper, Esq., 5, Billiter Street, E.O. 
 
 5, Billiter- Street, E.C., Oct. 24, 1867. 
 
 Sir, — In your note of the 17th inst. you do not answer two 
 of my questions, namely, when and where the interview of 
 your client with Sir Charles Barry took place ; and further how 
 the letters alleged to have been lent came into your client’s 
 possession. 
 
 As regards the last point, I infer from your silence that 
 Mr. Pugin has some difSculty in replying to my question, and 
 I am therefore instructed to waive it for the present, if he is 
 unable or unwilling to answer it, as my clients have no wish 
 to encumber the question with technicalities. As, however, 
 the loan is alleged to have been made so many years ago, and 
 the only evidence respecting it consists of the statement of 
 your client. I must again ask for the date and place of the 
 interview at which he states he “ lent ” to Sir Charles Barry 
 the letters written by himself. 
 
NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTER. 
 
 JJR 
 
 On receipt of a plain answer to this question my clients will 
 at once reply to your application, and give you every informa- 
 tion in their power ; and as they have never had (and conse- 
 quently never intimated to you) any other intention, they feel 
 they have a right to complain of the tone of your letter, and 
 your application of epithets by anticipation to a course which 
 has not been adopted. 
 
 I am. Sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 James Coopee. 
 
 G. J. Durrant, Esq. 
 
 5, Billiter Street, E.C., Oct. 24, 1867. 
 
 Sir, — The executors of the late Sir Charles Barry have heard 
 that your client Mr. E. Welby Pugin is about to issue a pamphlet 
 respecting the New Palace at Westminster, in which he intends 
 to publish certain letters of the late Sir Charles Barry, without 
 having first obtained permission to do so from his executors. 
 
 I have therefore to require on their behalf that an opportu- 
 nity be afforded them at once, and before the pamphlet is pub- 
 lished, of examining the original letters, and, if they think fit, 
 of taking copies of the same. I must require an answer to this 
 letter by this day week, and shall be ready to make an appoint- 
 ment with you for the purpose above described at any time 
 convenient to yourself. 
 
 I am. Sir, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 G. J. Durrant, Esq. James Cooper. 
 
 5, Billiter Street, E.C., Oct. 24, 1867. 
 
 G-entlemen, — As solicitors to the executors of the late Sir 
 Charles Barry it is my duty to inform you, that having heard 
 that you are about to publish a pamphlet by Mr. E. W. Pugin 
 respecting the New Palace at Westminster, in which it is in- 
 tended to print certain private letters of the late Sir Charles 
 Barry, that the permission of his executors has not been asked 
 or obtained for this purpose. 
 
 1 
 
114 
 
 THE ARCHITECT OF THE 
 
 Sir Charles Barry’s executors have no wish to hinder in the 
 slightest degree the publication of the pamphlet ; but I have to 
 require on their behalf that an opportunity be afforded to them 
 at once, and before the pamphlet is published, of examining the 
 original letters, and if they think fit of taking copies of the 
 same, and I have to require an answer to this request by this 
 day week. 
 
 1 am, Gentlemen, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 Messrs. Longmans. Jamks Cooper. 
 
 15, Bedford Row, London, W.C., Oct. 31, 1867. 
 
 Sir, — I am instructed by Mr. Pugin to state that the letters 
 came into his possession at his father’s death, and that they 
 were lent to Sir Charles Barry, not given. 
 
 The day they were lent was the 3rd February, 1860. You 
 appear to lay some stress upon the word “ lent.” What other 
 evidence can I offer under the circumstances that they were 
 lent and not given^ than Mr. Pugin’s solemn asseveration ? He 
 will give a statutory declaration to that effect if desired, as he is 
 willing to reiterate his statement on oath if necessary ; but in 
 my view, this would add nothing to the value of a statement 
 made by a gentleman of such unquestionable veracity as 
 Mr. Pugin. 
 
 I am gratified to find that your clients abhor technicalities, 
 I can assure you that Mr. Pugin does so also. 
 
 My last letter was written under some irritation at the idea 
 that Mr. Pugin’s statement of che circumstances of the case was 
 apparently doubted. 
 
 Hoping that the matter will now be gracefully closed by your 
 clients returning the letters, 
 
 I am. Sir, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 Jas. Cooper, Esq. G. J. DuRRANT. 
 
 P.S. — In reply to your second letter, I am instructed by 
 Mr. Pugin to say that he declines to enter into any further 
 controversy until the present one has been disposed of. 
 
 G. J. D. 
 
NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTER. 115 
 
 5, Billitor Street, E.C., Nov. 5, 1807. 
 
 Sir, — I have received yonr letter of the 31st October, and am 
 glad to notice an absence of the tone of which I was obliged to 
 complain in my last. 
 
 My clients have been always ready to give Mr. Pngin any 
 information in their power if any proper application had been 
 made to them for it. 
 
 Your letter informs me of the date on which the loan of 
 letters is said to have taken place, but it does not name the 
 place of the interview, nor does it state whether the letters had 
 been left to your client by his father. 
 
 Waiving, however, all further reference to these points, the 
 executors of the late Sir Charles Barry desire me to inform you 
 that they have never seen the letters your client describes ; 
 they have never heard of them and know nothing about them, 
 although two of their number are sons of Sir Charles Barry, 
 and they never heard him speak of any such letters. A re- 
 newed search has been made among Sir Charles Barry’s papers 
 since your first letter to me, but no letters to the late Mr. Pugin 
 have been found, and the only evidence on the subject before 
 the executors consists of the statement of your client. If it*had 
 been otherwise, the executors would have readily complied with 
 your client’s request, as they are convinced that the more the 
 relations between Sir Charles Barry and Mr. Pugin are exa- 
 mined, the more they will be found to redound to the fame and 
 honour of both these distinguished men. 
 
 As regards my application for an opportunity of inspecting 
 the letters of the late Sir Charles Barry in your client’s posses- 
 sion, the executors feel that it should be no matter of contro- 
 versy, but that it ought at once to be granted. Mr. E. Pugin 
 has quoted publicly from these letters which my clients have 
 never seen, with the avowed object of injuring Sir Charles 
 Barry’s reputation, but he has not published a single entire 
 letter. It is therefore only fair and reasonable that my clients 
 should have an opportunity of inspecting these letters and 
 comparing Mr. Pugin’s quotations with their context and with 
 each other. I must therefore press for an immediate and defi- 
 nite answer to my application on this subject. 
 
 I am. Sir, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 James Coocer. 
 
 (t. J. Duruant, E«q. 
 
116 
 
 THE ARCHITECT OF THE 
 
 5, Billiter Street, E.C., Nov. 15, 1867. 
 
 Gentlemen, — 1 beg to call your attention to my letter to you of 
 the 24tb ult., witb reference to a publication of a pamphlet by 
 Mr. E. W. Pugin, respecting the New Palace at Westminster. 
 I have to inform you that I have failed in getting any satis- 
 factory reply to a similar application addressed to Mr. Pugin’s 
 solicitor. My clients, the executors of the late Sir Charles 
 Barry, desire to repeat that they have no wish to hinder in the 
 slightest degree the publication of the pamphlet, and they are 
 convinced that anj^ bond fide description of the relation that 
 existed between Sir Charles and the late Mr. Pugin will only 
 redound to the honour of both. 
 
 They cannot, however, consent to the partial publication of 
 letters, professed to have been written by Sir (.'harles Barry, 
 but of which they have not any knowledge and have not had 
 any opportunity of seeing. 
 
 I am. Gentlemen, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 Messrs. Longmans, Paternoster Row. James Coopek. 
 
 5, Billiter Street, E.C., Nov. 15, 1867. 
 
 Sir, — I am surprised at seeing a letter from IMr. E. W. Pugin in 
 the ‘ Times ’ of to-day, stating that his pamphlet relating to the 
 the New Palace at Westminster was yesterday published by 
 Messrs. Longmans. I have to call your attention to my letter 
 of the 24th ult., stating that Mr. Pugin had never received the 
 permission of the executors r f Sir Charles Barry to the pub- 
 lication of any letters written by that gentleman, and asking 
 to see them before they were published. 
 
 I find the pamphlet is not yet published, and although my 
 clients do not object to any bond fide publication of letters that 
 passed between the late Sir Charles Barry and the late Mr. 
 Pugin, they do object to any partial publication of letters pro- 
 fessed to have been written by Sir Charles Barry, of which they 
 have not any knowledge, and have not had any opportunity of 
 seeing. 
 
 I am. Sir, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 James Cooper. 
 
 G. J. Dukkant, Esq. 
 
NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTER. 
 
 117 
 
 15, Bedford Row, London, W.C., Nov. 18, 18G7. 
 
 Sir, — I am instructed by Mr. Pugin to acquaint you tliat the 
 executors of tbe late Sir Charles Barry, may either by them- 
 selves, or by you as their solicitor, inspect the letters in Mr. 
 Pugin’s possession, written by Sir Charles Barry, any day this 
 week at “ The Grange,” Ramsgate. 
 
 Yours obediently, 
 
 G. J. DuilllANT. 
 
 James Cooper, Esq. 
 
 5, Billiter Street, E.O., Nov. 20, 18G7. 
 
 Dear Sirs, — I yesterday received a letter from Mr. Pugin’s 
 solicitor, offering to produce the letters of the late Sir Charles 
 Barry to my clients or me at Ramsgate ; to this I have replied, 
 requesting to see them in London. 
 
 My clients have not yet had any opportunity of seeing the 
 letters or of taking copies of them, and until they have done so 
 they object, as they have a perfect legal right to do, to the pub- 
 lication of any pamphlet containing copies of letters from the 
 late Sir Charles Barry, and I am quite sure that from the high 
 character of your house, you will feel the impropriety of publish- 
 ing it as long as their reasonable demand is not complied with. 
 
 Yours faithfully, 
 
 James Cooper. 
 
 Messrs. Longmans. 
 
 15, Bedford Row, London, W.C., Nov. 22, 18G7. 
 
 Dear Sir, — Mr. Pugin desires me to say (in a communication 
 received from him this morning) that the letters can be “ seen 
 “ at the Grange, Ramsgate, and nowhere else,” also that he 
 “ will not allow any longer the Messrs. Barry to impede the 
 “ publication of his pamphlet, and that it will be issued on 
 “ Monday next.” 
 
 Mr. Pugin dates his letter from Ramsgate, and adds he will 
 not be in town till Monday next. 
 
 I will write him, however, by to night’s post, with the pur- 
 port of our interview last evening. 
 
 Yours truly, 
 
 G. J. Durkant. 
 
 James Cooper, Esq. 
 
118 
 
 THE ARCHITECT OF THE 
 
 15, Bedford Row, London, Nov. 26, 1867. 
 
 Dear Sir,* — My client writes me that he sees no necessity 
 to reply to yonr statement which I conveyed to my client b}- 
 the letter I read over to you on Saturday last. I have received 
 certain letters (40 in number) from Mr. Pugin, and they are 
 now being copied, and the copies shall be sent you as soon as 
 possible, and you can compare them with the originals whenever 
 convenient to yourself. 
 
 I am, yours truly, 
 
 J. Cooper, Esq. Gr. J. Durrant. 
 
 5, Billiter Street, Nov. 27, 1867. 
 
 Sir Charles Barry's Executors and Pugin. 
 
 Dear Sir, — Am I clearly to understand that the copy of the 
 letters you are having made for me is a copy of all letters 
 written by the late Sir Charles Barry to the late Mr. Pugin in 
 yorir client’s possession ? 
 
 Yours truly, 
 
 G. J. Durrant, Esq. James Cooper. 
 
 15, Bedford Row, London, Nov. 30, 1867. 
 
 Pugin and Barry's Executors. 
 
 Dear Sir, — I send you on the other side copy letter from Mr. 
 Pugin, which Avill speak for itself. 
 
 ‘ Yours tiuly, 
 
 James Cooper, Esq. G. J. Durrant. 
 
 * “ 1867, 23rd Nov. — I called on Mr. Durrant, and informed him that the 
 “ executors of the late Sir Charles Barry had recently, in their search for the 
 “ letters enquired after by Mr. Edward Welby Pugin, found several letters of 
 “ his late father bearing materially on the controversy, and that they would 
 “ have much pleasure in giving him copies of them, and producing the ori- 
 “ ginals to him, but of course upon the understanding that his client gave them 
 “ copies of all the letters of the late Sir Charles Barry in his possession, and 
 “ produced the originals in London. Mr. Durrant said this was what was 
 “ right, as it could only be the wish of the parties to arrive at the truth, and 
 “ that to prevent any misunderstanding he would, in my presence, write to 
 “ Mr. Pugin and inform him of my offer, and read me his letter, which he 
 “ accordingly did. J. Cooper.” 
 
PALACE AT WESTMINSTER. 
 
 iiy 
 
 “ Ramsgato, Nov. 29, 18G7. 
 
 “My dear Sir, — The letters I have sent you are simply those 
 “ from which I have quoted in my pamphlet. I am not bound, 
 “ nor do I intend, to make any answer as to what other corre- 
 “ spondence I may have of Sir Charles Barry. 
 
 “ Yours very faithfully, 
 
 “ E. W. Pugin. 
 
 “ G. Durrant, Esq.” 
 
 15, Bedford Row, London, Dec. 5, 1867. 
 
 Barry's Executors and Pugin. 
 
 Dear Sir, — I have unfortunately kept no copy of the charges I 
 delivered to you for the correspondence. I, therefore, have 
 received 7l. 10s. from your clerk,* and now send you the copies. 
 If I have taken too much I will remit the difference, but if less 
 than the account delivered, you no doubt will make it right. 
 
 Yours truly, 
 
 G. J. Durrant. 
 
 James Cooper, Esq. 
 
 5, Billiter Street, Dec. 6, 1867. 
 
 Sir Charles Barry's Executors and Pugin. 
 
 Dear Sir, — Now that I have copies of such of the letters of 
 the late Sir Charles Barry as Mr. Pugin says are referred to in 
 his pamphlet, my clients do not raise any further objection to 
 the publication of such letters. This assent to the publication 
 of those letters must not in any way bind my clients with 
 respect to a pamphlet they have never seen, and with respect 
 to which they reserve to themselves perfect freedom of action. 
 
 Yours faithfully, 
 
 James Cooper. 
 
 G. J. Durrant, Esq. 
 
 * Mr. Pugin insisted that we should pay for the copies of the letters, and 
 to this demand we made no objection. 
 
120 architect of the palace at WESTMINSTER. 
 
 15, Bedford Row, London, Dec. 10, 1867. 
 Pugin and Barry. 
 
 Dear Sir, — By consent of Mr. Pugin, and at your desire, T 
 send you by book-post a copy of the pamphlet for your clients. 
 
 Yours truly, 
 
 James Cooper, Esq. Gr. J. Durrant. 
 
 5, Billiter Street, Dec. 11, 1867. 
 
 Dear Sirs, — I send you copy of a letter I wrote to Mr. Pugin’s 
 solicitor last Friday. Sir Charles Barry’s executors having had 
 an opportunity of seeing the letters contained in Mr. Pugin’s 
 pamphlet do not offer any opposition to its publication. 
 
 I am, dear Sirs, 
 
 Yours faithfully, 
 
 Messrs. Longmans. J ames Cooper. 
 
 I.0N1X)N: PKINTKD by W. CLOWE? and sons, duke street, STAMFORD STREET, 
 AND CHARING CROSS. 
 
ADDENDUM. 
 
 Mr. E, W. Pugin tells ns that his father had nothing' to do 
 with the Houses of Parliament, and indeed would liavc* tjo 
 communication with Sir Charles Barry, in the years from 
 to 1844. Mr. Wolfe states, on p. Gl, that the third and liinil 
 design, as now executed, was made at this time, and its most 
 important features determined in 1838. In confirmation of this 
 statement, I subjoin the following entries in my father’s diary 
 for 1838 : — 
 
 1838. 
 
 Jan. 2 to 5 
 
 6 
 
 Feb. 5 
 
 7 and 8 
 
 9 and 10 
 
 April 21 
 
 25 
 
 27, 28, 29, 30 
 
 May 1 
 
 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 
 
 14,16,17,18 
 
 19 
 
 — - 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 
 26, 28, 29, 30, 31 . . 
 
 June 1 and 2 
 
 At design in detail of part of Eivcr front. 
 
 At detailed elevations. 
 
 At design of Great Tower. 
 
 At design for Great Tower and bays of Kiver Iron I . 
 At design for Land fronts and Clock Tower. 
 
 At enlarged drawing of one bay of River front. 
 Considering proposed improvement in design. 
 
 At study of River front. 
 
 do. do. 
 
 At River front drawings. 
 
 At design for River front. 
 
 I At new House of Commons, &e., and design for 
 1 River front. 
 
 I At new design for River front. 
 
 ( At general drawing of River front, with all ini- 
 \ provements. 
 
 July 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 . . do. do. 
 
 10 At design for River front. (Completed.) 
 
 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, j 
 
 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, \ 
 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30 I 
 Aug. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, i 
 11, 13, 14, 15 .. ..I 
 
 Oct. 15, 16, 17, 19, 20 . . 
 
 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, i 
 
 29, 30, 31 ) 
 
 Nov. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, i 
 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 
 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 
 
 24 ) 
 
 Dec. 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11,12, 
 
 13, 14 I 
 
 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, ( 
 
 25,26,27,29,31 ) 
 
 On general plans. 
 
 At working drawings. 
 
 At details of River front. 
 
 At drawings of River front. 
 
 At drawings of River front, &c. 
 
 At drawings central portion of River front. 
 At drawings of River front. 
 

 
 V '>* "4s^* ^'> ^ •“ *' -•- 
 
 5 ' 
 
 ^-•fi ' >, »• i;»j;ii'<C.. •# •• 
 
 • '■‘*'S*ti • .• V- ' ■'. -i- » • • ' ,♦. 
 
 N# ..^v •■■’ * 
 
 '•'•.V 
 
 .^-•f ♦. 
 
 *v- •-€• 
 
 '•a 
 
 t- 
 
 * ^ ^ ^ f’ 
 
 .f .?■■ 
 
 , «f 
 
 •J f • 
 
 ^ * f f . :* ■ 'f #; 
 
 f' -r - V- 
 
 
 
 A> ♦ ^ 
 
 ^ : 
 
 
 _ • ^ ^ * J d- ■ - "t ^ ^ \ •■ 
 
 ^ , 
 
 
 • » .» 
 
 ■*t 
 
 / ‘Hi 
 
 .:a. 
 
 ’;'■ • •* . ' #. „ •'7* w-'t ■ ,r • .,'>• 
 
 ■••-*. »\ *1 . .’* ' « 
 
 3%. ' 
 
 4^- 
 
 fV 
 
 "*' , ":V'' 
 
 .. ,*. * .-:« V.,.:,..|t:^ 
 
 ^ • •> • . . • ■% 1*. T 
 
 . *.■ / 
 
 ». . - ._**'^ 
 
 ♦ r 
 
 % 
 
 ■ . ’ ', ' .'f'- iSL 
 
 • . * • W ^ 
 
 
 
 ,.;-v - 
 
 *.<V »wi 
 
 ’;u. 
 
 I / 'fen, ' 
 
 '.»- • vV ‘V'’s!tejV