The Sun.
London, England, 1868-02-21 00:00:00

LETTER OF 1845.

The additional matter in Dr. Barry's pamphlet
does not change the aspect of the letter of 1845.
Neither does this document, nor do the previous
letters of my father, make the least reference to the
transactions of 1835, but to arrangements in ope-
ration ten years later ; and the reports about my
father arose from the original transactions, and not
from the revived connection of the architects for
the execution of carvings and decorations. In the
absence of any information whatever as to Sir C.
Barry's reply to my father's proposal in June, to
do what was only carried out in September, I can
only state my suspicion that Sir Charles wanted,
him to lend himself to something to which he re-
fused to accede, and that the published letter was
a compromise. This would account for the agita-
tion and distress of mind to which I have testified,
together with Mrs. Mares, who could make no mis-
take on the matter. This is now further confirmed
by Mr. Early, who saw him at the time, and re-
members his state of agitation and excitement.

The evidence of the different gentlemen named
in Dr. Barry's pamphlet I cannot doubt to be in
accordance with facts as presented to them, but 1
repeat with increased emphasis that I have a most
exact personal knowledge of everything done in my
father's office from 1844. Mr. Talbot Bury makes
a most gratuitous misstatement in saying that I was
at school till the age of 16. 1 never was at school
in my life. I worked in my father's studio from a
very early age, and I never left it, I know there-
ore the enormous amount of work done there, and
the vast mass of designs which were daily emanat-
ing from him. May I ask Mr. T. Bury also to re-
concile two other statements he makes (p. 9, Dr.
Barry's pamphlet) ? He observes—" No one saw
the set of designs we (he and my father) were en-
gaged on for Mr. G. Graham but ourselves." Mr.
Osmond knows that these designs were mostly done
on his premises at Salisbury, and implies that he
saw them there. Mr. T. Bury says that he saw
Sir Charles Barry's drawings at the mine time that
he was working on Mr. Graham's designs, i.e., from
Sept.t . 12thy h
fa t to
father
c t. 3ad w,
DI
8 r 3.
and yet he states
that
5 ;
Barry's " remarkable
,first
s
design " on or about October 12th, and returned to
his (Mr. Bury's) house to describe it to him. Mr.
T. Bury says that " Pugin did not have 400
guineas from Mr. Barry—he did not receive over
£300." Dr. Barry says he received £413 14s.
My father received and paid away several large
sums of money in 1835 ; but I am unable to say
with any exactness who paid them to him. I
certainly was, as I have been often reminded, an
infant in 1835, but nothing was more improbable
than that my father was working so incessantly
(some eighty days, as far as I can make out) during
that year for Sir Charles without any payment ;
and although I have no personal knowledge of
these transactions, one of the very first things to
which my recollection reverts is the statement of
my father that he received 400 guineas from Sir
Charles in 1835, and the reproaches my mother
directed against him for " selling his brains:,
That no memorandum of this payment appears in
Sir C. Barry's diary is no disproof of its being
made; whereas, the amount of work confessedly
done by my father in 1835 makes my statement, to '
say the least, more than probable.
My father's letter from Nottingham confirms my
own experience of the effect so often produced on
him by drawing for Sir Charles Barry. In a letter
to my mother he says complainingly of Sir Charles,
who wanted elaborate drawings entirely changed
—" He thinks nothing of my head-work." He
was often wearied out and exasperated. by Sir
Charles's vacillation and difficulty in making up
his mind, and I know that he became so disgusted
at losing his time in preparing useless drawings
that he determined to discontinue doing so until
Sir Charles had thoroughly " made up his mind
as to every arrangement," when he felt that he
could be of " real service" in supplying the " de-
tails," which would not involve that "dreadful
loss of time " in making " drawings of no real use."
But to conclude from this that my father never
did, or could, design, or lacked the power of de-
signing anything but details, is rather too mon-
strous a conclusion in the face of all the work he
had done in the course of his life. On one point
I am perfectly clear—that of the throne. The
original design was made, I have reason to be-
lieve, at the time of the competition, as the
diary testifies. To the best of my recollection it
was with reference to the throne that Sir
Charles first resought my father's assistance ; for I
myself saw him within a few days prepare three
distinct designs (one of them on board a Rams-
gate steamer) which were submitted to Sir Charles;
and I have a vivid remembrance of the irritation
and annoyance my father suffered from Sir Charles's
repeated changes and fastidious objections. After
wasting my father's time he would often revert, as
he seems to have done in this instance, to the ori-
ginal conception ; and it was my father's experi-
ence of all this which accounts for the letter from
Nottingham. When Sir Charles had " made up
his mind as to every arrangement," my father felt
that he had got on ground where Sir Charles could
not follow him, and then worked to some purpose.
As regards the throne, from first to last, I am
absolutely certain that it was entirely my father's
design. I saw the various original sketches made,
I saw them worked into shape, and Mr. Burton, to
whom I have appealed, and who was then engaged
by Mr. Hardman at Birmingham, distinctly re-
members the three designs I have spoken of, which
were taken to Birmingham, lost at the railway
station, and subsequently found by him and
cussed in his presence. He remembers my father's
distress at the loss, carefully examined the draw-
ings, and knows that they were original concep-
tions and designs of my father. He also remembers
the vanes shown in the photograph to Dr. Barry's
pamphlet, which were Actually made and oubke-

quently rejected by Sir Charles Barry. As regards
the photograph itself, given in Dr. Barry's pamph-
let, who will question my statement that Sir Charles
copied my father's style, even to a dot? But for
this evident imitation I should say that the photo-
graph was not only after my father's design, but
also o drawn by his own hand.
`The following letter from Mr. Purcell corrobo-
rates all I have advanced respecting the existence
and delivery of the packet of letters to Sir Charles
Barry :
" Dear Pugin, —ln reply to your letter asking
me what I remembered about the late Sir Charles
Barry's letters to your father, I can state that in the
year 1860 the whole correspondence which you
have now made public, together with the letters
given to Sir Charles Barry, were for a time in my
hands. These letters 1 bad examined and put aside
for the purpose of writing, as you remember, a
biography of your father ; the idea of which I only
gave up on hearing that Mr. Ferrey had already a
portion of his Recollections' in type. —Yours sin-
cerely, "EDMUND S. PURCELL."
At the present moment 1 feel it would be
folly to commit my case to the decision of any
jury, since on the Messrs. Barry's confession of
the destruction of every drawing and document
connected with the transaction, except such as evi-
dence in their favour, I am deprived of the very
means on which I relied for confirmation of my
statements.

It only remains for me to suggest that, with all
due deference to the statements of Mr. Wolfe,
whose position was such that he certainly must
know more about the original transactions than
any one else, if there is any truth in my representa-
tions about the year 1835, even he was not
cognizant of the real relations established between
Sir Charles and my father ; and although I
entirely repudiate every supposition that he
states anything but what he conceives and
believes to be the truth, there are certain diffi-
culties lying at the root of the whole matter re-
quiring to be cleared up; and, until this is done, I
cannot admit that my position is in any material
degree weakened. I cannot but acknowledge, and
believe that Dr. Barry, like myself, is fully desirous
of eliciting the true state of the case, and—whilst
now confessing to some of the minor inad-
vertences with which he has charged me—
I shall be the first to accept a defeat, should I
ever perceive that the grounds of my claims are un-
tenable. At present, however, Ido not see sufficient
reason for relinquishing these claims, or in any
way renouncing my conviction that my father was
at least the " joint architect" of the Palace of
Westminster.

". The books and documents are lodged at my office in
Saville-row, and can bo seen by a written application to
myself.

RAILWAY AND OTHER COMPANIES.

-

GREAT EASTERN.

The report of the directors states that the half-
yearly accounts of the company, made up to the
31st of December last, show a gross revenue from
all sources of £1,031,227, against a gross revenue
of £996,293 in the corresponding half-year of 1866.
The increase has been consequently £34,934, or at
the rate of 3f per cent. The working expenses
have been £511,194, or about 49f per cent. upon
the gross revenue. In the corresponding half-year
of 1866 the working expenses were £508,740, or
about 51f per cent. on the gross revenue. The net
revenue is, consequently, £509,198, against a net
revenue of £483,677 in December, 1866, showing
an increase of £25,521, or 5f per cent. The leased
lines and the interest upon debentures absorb
£238,635. A further sum of £12,076 is required
for the payment of interest upon the floating debt.
The remainder is sufficient to pay the half-year's
dividends of all the preference shareholders falling
due on the 31st December, and also all the arrears
due for the previous half-year to those preference
shareholders whose dividends were not covered by
the revenue of that half-year. The anticipation,
therefore, expressed by the late chairman of the
company, that the revenue of the year 1867 would
be sufficient to meet the preference dividends for
that year, has proved to be correct. A slight
balance of £7,737 remains over. There is an
increase in the account for maintenance and re-
newals of way and works, and a decrease in the lo-
comotive and traffic charges. The present Board
of Directors are not responsible for the application
of this outlay, having been appointed after the ex-
piration of the half year. They have, however, no
reason to believe that the sum expended in the re-
newal of the way and rolling stock has been inade-
quate. The continental traffic through the port of
Harwich still forms an item of serious loss in the
half yearly accounts. There is an expenditure of
£48,431 on capital account, of which £14,250 was
expended in the purchase of six new locomotives,
£7,867 was absorbed by Parliamentary expenses,
and £2,040 is inserted on account of the purchase
of a screw collier, in March, 1865, agreed to be
paid for by instalments ; the remainder was spent
upon additional land and works. The directors
concur in the opinion, now generally gaining ground,
that the additions to capital account ought to be
restrained within the narrowest limits. The future
position of the company depends upon four points :
1. The course which is adopted in dealing with the
schemes for metropolitan extension; 2. The exact
amount at which the liabilities of the company, both
contingent and certain, are to be fixed ; 3. The
condition of the way and rolling stock, and the ex-
pense which their future maintenance is likely to in-
volve ; 4. The extent to which it may be possible
to augment the traffic and to retrench the working
expenses of the various parts of the railway. The
formation of any opinion upon these points de-
pends upon the results of inquiries which are still
in progress, and which must necessarily occupy
some time. Until those inquiries are completed any
attempt to estimate the future prospects of the com-
pany would be futile. In the course of next month,
however, it will be necessary to call together the
shareholders and preference shareholders, under the
finance act of last year, in order to consider the pro-
priety of raising capital as authorised by that act.
The directors hope on that occasion to be able to
enter fully into the financial position and prospects
of the company. The contract with the Mellis and
Eye Railway Company, under which the Great
Eastern Company engage to work that railway for
50 per cent. of the gross receipts, will be presented
to the proprietors for confirmation. The directors
do not desire to multiply working contracts upon
these terms. In many cases they impose upon
the company the necessity of working branch
lines at a loss. But in the case of the Mellis and
Eye Railway engagements have been entered into
from which, in the opinion of the directors, the
company cannot honourably recede. The line is
only three miles in length, and the loss, at the
worst, cannot be a very large sum. The board
were of opinion that it was unnecessary to retain the
offices both of chief officer and of a general manager.
Under these circumstances Mr. Moseley, the late
general manager, who has been 24 years in the ser-
vice of the company, retired on an annuity of £5OO.
As Mr. Moseley's salary was £1,500 a year, the
company will save £l,OOO a year by the arrange-
ment. It is one, however, that will not be valid
unless it receives the sanction of the proprietors.
The bill which was deposited by the late board of
directors, containing, among other things, provi-
sions for the abolition of the separate directorships
belonging to the Northern and Eastern and the
East Anglian Companies, will, it is understood, be
resisted by both these companies as regards these
provisions. The directors will be glad to learn the
wishes of the proprietors with respect to the further
prosecution of these proposed changes. The capital
account to the 31st of December showed that
£24,421,734 had been expended, It a balance
against the company of £1,006,765.