The Sun.
London, England, 1867-08-28 00:00:00

public expense, we have no hesitation in saying
that the system which makes such an arrange-
ment possible among honourable men is simply
scandalous. It is of course perfectly fair that
every architect should send out designs pre-
pared in his own office, and under his own.
superintendence, without specifying the amount
of assistance he may have derived from those
who work under him. But this is something
totally different. We are now told that one of
the most eminent architects of the time, wishing
to enter into the public competition for rebuilding
the Ilouses of Parliament, and conscious of his
own incapacity for designing a Gothic building
made a private arrangement with the best Gothic
architect alive to supply him with designs, which
he then passed off as his own. As it is, the matter
cannot rest here, and there must surely be some
way of getting at a definite proof of the correctness
of Mr. E. W. Pugin's statements. We venture to
remind the architectural profession in general that
their own honour is concerned both in ascertaining
the truth and in putting a stop to all such arrange-
ments, as are alleged to have been made in this
case, for the future.—Pall Mall Gazette.

Mr. Welby Pugin has brought a very serious
charge against the late Sir C. Barry. He says
that the Houses of Parliament, which made Sir
Charles's fortune, were not designed by him, but
by the late Mr. Pugin, who sold his plans to the
rival architect for £4OO. He would have com-
peted himself, but was under the impression—quite
correct, we suspect—that as a Catholic he would
have no chance whatever of success. The draw-
ingg covered nearly every portion of the building.
Sir Charles was unable, when he got them, to
carry them out without further assistance, and
yet for twenty years he lived on the credit of
another man's work. Mr. Barry, Sir Charles's
son, will, of course, reply to this statement, which
appeared in the Pall Mall Gazette of Thursday,
under Mr. Pugin's signature, and which is sup-
ported by some memoranda of the late Mr. Pugin ;
but meanwhile the story looks decidedly an ugly
one. Cannot Mr. Pugin recover the cheque by
which his father was probably paid ?—Spectator.

A controversy has sprung up in the papers as to
the share Welby Pugin had in producing the de-
signs for the Houses of Parliament. There has long
been a doubt as to the real authorship of these
designs. It is high time that the mystery should
be cleared up. From the correspondence which
has appeared there seems to be a fair chance that
the public at last will learn the truth. We are
accustomed to see the genuineness of an ancient
MS. disputed, or the authenticity of an old picture,
and are often compelled to remain in doubt; but
it is rather too much to expect the same equani-
mity as to a building of our own generation. In
another column we give a letter from Mr. E.
Welby Pugin, which appeared in the Pall Mall of
last week, and the remarks which it has elicited
in some of the papers. In the comments of the
Spectator—so just and so much to the purpose—
we fully concur. To the statements of Mr. E.
Welby Pugin Mr. Edward Barry opposes simply a
denial. In the Pall Mall Gazette of Thursday Mr.
Barry confesses, however, that he has no personal
knowledge of the matter, being, as he says, a mere
baby at the time that the designs of the Houses
of Parliament were prepared, but he relies on the
recollections of a Mr. Wolff and of an assistant of
fifteen years' standing in his father's office. Of
the value of such testimony as against the letters
of Sir Charles Barry and the diary of Pugin the
public will have no difficulty of judging. We shall
await with curiosity to see a real attempt on the
part of Mr. Barry to produce corroboration of his
denial.—Westminster Gazette.