The Sun.
London, England, 1867-09-21 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.

Sir,—One fact is worth a thousaiia assertions.
Mr. E. M. Barry ventures to declare: that I have
" enough to do to contradict my own witnesses."
Will he now kindly specify who my witnesses are,
and on what points I called them ?
After your direct invitation (which referred as
much to Mr. Barry as to myself) to propose some
plan for meeting the existing and growing difficulties
of the Houses of Parliament, it is certainly.strange
that Mr. Barry, who has had an entire session to
prepare his suggestions, did not at once bring forward
the general outline of his ideas, and so relieve the
minds not only of the members of the House of Com-
mons, but also of the country at large. Mr. Barry
makes but one objection to my scheme, and it can
hardly be called a grave one ; for it is, to use his own
words, "an obvious absurdity." He bases his ob-
jection on the fact that the " courts are already too
small." I do not suppose Mr. Barry requires me to
tell him that any uncovered court is too small in
this climate which is less than two acres in extent ;
but with regard to the courts at Westminster, there
they are, and we have to make the best use we can of
them. It can scarcely be said that we are doing this
when we retain close corridors so packed that every
one jostles every one else, and where both breath-
ing room and space generally would be of the
greatest service, not only to the occupants of the
corridors, but also to those in the committee-rooms.
In the face of these essential requirements it is hard
L to see why Mr. Barry should declaim so loudly
against the " diminution of the courts," especially
when he, himself, in disparaging my scheme, admits
' that my suggestions are almost identical with those
made by himself and others to the committee of the
House of Commons. Now, as none of my sugges-
tions can be carried out without encroaching more
or less into some of the courts, and since Mr.
Barry's ideas are "identical" with mine, it would
appear that Mr. Barry himself has been guilty
of the "obvious absurdity" which he imputes to
me. I have yet to learn, however, for what rea-
sons the present courts are to be considered so much
too small that any purpose which they now serve
should be allowed to outweigh the immense advan-
tages to be obtained by the alterations I suggested.
It cannot be for the sake of the milkman or
baker, who pay their daily visits to the Speaker's
and Librarian's lodgings, nor of the occasional
broughams which convey diners to or from the same
localities, nor of the solitary policemen who per-
ambulate the purlieus of the deseitcd courts i❑ un-
disturbed serenity. Mr. E. M. Barry, as usual,
has made a strong assertion without advancing any
proof. Allow me to say that all that I have pro
posed could be accomplished without curtailing the
lower portions of the principal courts by a single
foot.
It was also somewhat startling to be told, with re-
ference to Westminster-bridge, that the province of
the architect was assumed by the engineer, and vice
versa ; for according to Mr. Barry's own statement,
Sir Charles decided the height and width of the road-
way, while Mr. Page, the engineer, took upon him-
self the designing of the externals, including the
celebrated ballusters, lamps, Sze. This declaration,
however, is rather an unfortunate one. By
it Mr. E. M. Barry, while tacitly admitting
the force of my adverse criticism, endeavours
to shift the discredit of the performance on
to Mr. Page, and at the same time affords
a rather powerful proof that Sir Charles Barry
did after all " adopt other people's ideas," and
burden himself with the authorship of other men's
productions ; for Sir Charles himself informed me,
in his own office at Westminster, that "he had
every reason to hope that the appearance of the
Palace would be immensely improved when the new
bridge, which he had designed and was being car •
vied out by Mr. Page, should replace the old one."
Mr. E. M. Barry does not attempt either to
disprove any of my assertions or to defend his own
work. I may take the liberty of reminding him,
however, that a case must be thoroughly desperate
when it becomes incapable of defence. Surely,
light and other conveniences appertaining to the
clerk's and librarian's residences have not been wil-
fully sacrificed—the external effect of Palace-yard
absolutely ruined, and our greatest national build-
ing burlesqued and ridiculed, without there existing
some reasons to make the mutilations that have been
perpetrated of less importance than the supposed
conveniences that have been gained by their per-
petration. It is obvious to all beholders that the
atmospheric dilapidation of the last 30 years is a
mere joke iu comparison with the wholesale de-
struction which has been purposely effected during
the past 12 months. And what end or purpose has
it served ? It cannot be excused on the ground of
utility alone, for a low level cloister would have an-
swered every requirement equally well, terminating,
as it would have done, at the foot of a staircase com-
municating directly with the House. It is, perhaps,
intended to be an exhibition of how thoroughly
the Messrs. Barry, during their sojourn in their
father's office, from 1812 to 1860, made themselves
acquainted with, and learnt to apply and develop° the
principles on which the original designs were based.
If so, myself, in common with the general public,
must be pardoned if we scarcely think the result a
success.--I am, sir, your obedient servant,
E. WELBY PUGIN.
The Grange, Ramsgate, Sept. 20.