11 DECEMBER 1886, Page 12

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

THE LATE MR. AYRTON.

[To TEE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."'

you allow me, as a nephew of the late Mr. Ayrton, to correct one or two trifling errors of fact in your appreciative notice of him ? Mr. Ayrton was the son not of an officer, but of a lawyer who had practised with much success at Bombay. His father died during his minority, and Mr. Ayrton, who had been born and educated in England, went to India immediately on attaining twenty-one. He returned with a moderate fortune at the age of thirty-four.

Whilst Mr. Ayrton's mastery of detail was most remarkable, those who were brought into close contact with him were even more struck by the unerring way in which he seized the vital principles of all subjects that he took up ; so that no amount of detail confused his mind or clouded his judgment. This was notably the case in reference to his professional knowledge, and was exemplified in almost the last public work that he did. He had, by Act of Parliament, been appointed arbitrator (with all the powers of a Judge of the High Court of Justice) to unravel the complicated difficulties caused by over-issues of stock of the Milford Haven Dock Company, and decide all questions arising directly or indirectly out of the confusion into which that Company had fallen. I believe the barristers and solicitors practising before him will bear me out in saying that in dealing with difficult questions of law and fact, he showed great mastery of all legal principles involved.

It was this power of adhering firmly to the central idea of a subject that brought him into conflict with artists and men of science. Whilst very appreciative of true beauty in the arts, and full of knowledge derived from travel, observation, and study, he never lost sight of the fact that the primary object of a building is that it should be the most useful and best fitted that can be constructed for the purpose for which it is to be used, and he was very intolerant of any mere ornament which inter- fered with or did not promote that purpose. I believe I am not misinterpreting the teaching of Mr. Ruskin when I say that in this intolerance be was at one with that great critic, and that all noblest art-work has ever exemplified this principle in the highest degree.

The character of Mr. Ayrton is not completely sketched unless mention is made of his clear and strong religious views, in which the same adherence to central principles and disregard of the mere fringe of a subject were apparent. He lost no opportunity of expressing his belief in the spirituality of religion, and advocating simplicity of form of Protestant worship ; and he abhorred any approach to Materialism or Agnosticism.—I am Sir, &c.,