The Sun.
London, England, 1870-05-14 00:00:00

THE DISMISSAL OF AIR. BARRY.

Mr. COWPER-TEMPLE called the attention of the House
to the correspondence relating to the dismissal of Mr.
Edward Barry from his employment as architect of the
Houses of Parliament, and moved that, in the opinion of
the House, the abrupt discontinuance of the employment
of the architect, who had hitherto been engaged when-
ever professional skill and responsibility were required,
at a moment when works entrusted to his direction were
still in progress, was uncalled for, and of doubtful a"
pediency. The hon. gentleman, at considerable length,
noticed the principal circumstances connected with
Mr. Barry's position as the architect of that House,
and described the nature of his employment. Mr'
Barry was not paid by salary, but by commission, and
he (the hon. gentleman) found that during the last ten
years the commission paid to the architect amounted to
£3OO a-year on the average. He contended that Mr.
Barry's appointment was more an honorary one, and
pointed out that all the large buildings in London had
permanent and salaried architects. He thought the First
Commissioner of Works must show good grounds for the
change. Whatever might be said about the architecture
of the building no one can deny that it was carried
out to perfection in its particular style. The
hon. member held that the contemptuous manner
in which Mr Barry hap been treated was indefensible.
Mr. AYRTON justified the course which he had taken.
In asking Mr. Barry to give up the contract plans and
drawings of that building, he had acted upon the opinion
of Mr. Hunt, the surveyor of the Office of Works, as given,
in another case. The Crown had paid for them, and
therefore they were the property of the Crown. He coy
tended that Mr. Barry knew perfectly well his position,
rnd that his employment was not permanent. The First
Commissioner of Works read an extract from one of gr•
Barry's letters in which that gentleman explained hi°
position. There really was no foundation for the state.
mint that Mr. Barry was dismissed whilst engaged ia
certain works which were in progress. As soon as ND'
Barry certified the amount due to the various contractors,
the money would be paid on his certificate, and his alone'
He alluded to what he called the Institute of Architects,
to which Mr. Barry belonged, and denied their right to
aesert that they alone were competent to deal with mat'
ters connected with the public works. At the present
moment an engineer officer was performing the duties
in
connection with the Public Works Department.

Mr. BERESFORD-HOPE said that Mr. Barry's net profit
amounted to only about £179 a year, and therefore 139;
services had been almost gratuitous. The hon. member
replied to the remarks made by the Commissioner ni
Works in reference to the Institute of Architects, and
under strong excitement, reminded the House that ate
Institute Lof Architects was an acknowledged, incorPo-
- and representative body, and hadreceived accuran'
lative marks of loyal favour, and formed the governing
body on all such questions as were in dispute.
Mr. B. OSBORNE said the whole history of that building
was one of profligate expenditure. The original estil
for the building was £750,000, and the actual cost was tl;
wards of £3,000,000. Upwards of £12,000 had been spent,
in frescoes, which were now rotting on the sv3us'
Hitherto the First Commissioner of Works had been ~
the hands of the architect. He sarcastically alluded '7,
Mr. Hope's connection with the " family of architects,
and remarked that they had had Mr. Barry round tbeir
reek too long.
Lord JOHN MANNERS said Mr. Barry had been treated

with unnecessary and exceptional harshness.
After some further discussion, in which Sir Willoo
Tite, Alderman Lawrence, Lord Elcho, Mr. Walter, Ni_dr.
Gladstone—the latter pointing out that the motion 5".7
wrong in stating that Mr. Barry had been dismissed
employment on works in progress, and that it was 0...°
right to assume that he would not again be employed-
Lord Elcho, and Mr. W. H. Gregory took part, a division
was taken, and the motion was lost by a majority of 4'2.
The discussion lasted more than five hours.
The Tramways Bill, as amended, was considered.
Jae
Mr. PLIMSOLL obtained leave to bring in a bill to pros'
for the greater security of life at sea.
Wi1941Q1.1.09449411MW-Uli taalialagig°