“1825.] © 
liberty, has, most providentially, lost 
himself. [See Chronology of the Month.) 
Q. But has Architectural Criticism 
nothing to say on the present occa- 
sion? Have the improvements going 
on and projected in the metropolis sug- 
gested no topic for animadversion 2 
A. Certainly, there is room sufficient 
both for censure and commendation. 
New streets and new edifices intrude 
upon us every where—pretensions of 
grandeur, and disregard both of con- 
venience and congruity ;—profusion of 
expence with penury of taste. It 
is high time, for the sake of national 
reputation, that the subject were taken 
up in a critical point of view. In the 
mean while, it may be admitted, that the 
re-alteration in Palace Yard seems en- 
titled to some commendation. The 
demolition of Mr. Soane’s Brobdignag 
twelfthcake (a strange model for a public 
edifice!) and the substitution of an 
appropriate wing to the Hall of Rufus, 
in the same antique style of architecture, 
wants little but the addition of a cor- 
respondent wing, which probably is in- 
tended, and some little relief to the 
Quaker-like plainness of the lower part 
of these additions, to ensure a very 
grand effect, But the principal archi- 
tectural topic has been, and for some 
time, perhaps, will continue to be, 
COLONEL TRENCH’S PROPOSED QUAY, 
ON THE NORTH BANK OF iHE THAMES, 
On which I present you with a few 
remarks. ‘“ Among the projects, which 
the leisure of peace and the redundancy 
of capital have lately engendered, I know 
of none more commendable, in point of 
practicability and utility, than that in- 
troduced to the House of Commons, on 
the 15th, by Colonel Trench, for build- 
ing a quay and terrace on the north 
bank of the Thames. The House was 
singularly divided on this occasion. Mr. 
Hobhouse, Mr. Calcraft, Mr. Peel and 
Mr. Croker opposed the project : Lord 
Palmerston, Sir Robert Wilson and 
Mr. Baring supported it. The oppo- 
sition to the measure assumed, that it 
would invade private property ; that in- 
stead of £400,000 or£600,000, as stated 
in the prospectus, five milions would be 
requisite to complete it; that the mud-— 
dock, contemplated by the plan, would 
be agreat nuisance; that the inhabi- 
‘tants of the streets running from. the 
Strand to the riyer would lose the light 
up to their first-floor windows ; that the 
view of the Thames from the land side 
would be hid by a brick-wall, thirty 
feet high, and thirty feet wide; and 
finally, by the suspensive argument 
employed by Mr. Croker and Mr. Peel, 
Topics of the Month :— Col. Trench’s New Quay. 
235 
that it was impossible to calculate 
the effect of the new current which 
would be created by the removal of 
London Bridge, and that it was better 
to wait till that result was determined. 
To these objections it was answered, 
that, although it might at first injure 
private property, it would, in the end, 
materially benefit it: that persons of 
the highest qualification had under-, 
taken to execute the improvement, at 
the highest estimate, for £688,000 ; 
for a plain erection, £400,000: that 
the mud.dock, forming no necessary part 
of the project, might be got rid of, and 
a market be established there; that 
the light would not be excluded from 
the neighbouring streets, since the ter- 
race would be occasionally supported 
by columns and arches; and, that the 
removal of London Bridge, by lessening 
the volume of water in the river, was 
all in favour of the plan. In fine, the 
bill was brought in by a majority of 
85 to 45. An inspection of Col. Trench’s 
prospectus and illustrations will invali- 
date most of the arguments adduced 
against him; the landviews of the whole 
line, extending from Arundel-street to 
Blackfriars’-bridge, will be decidedly 
improved and embellished, instead of 
being impaired, while the water view 
will be superb; at present, it is dis- 
graceful. 
The chief magnificence of Peters- 
burg and Paris results from their noble 
quays. Terraced quays, descending to 
the river Euphrates, were the noblest 
features of London’s greatest commer- 
cial predecessor, Babylon. At present, 
the squalid and wretched chaos of 
buildings, on the banks of the river, are 
not only disgusting, but unhealthful. 
They obscure and degrade the noblest 
buildings, of the metropolis, as viewed 
from the river; and their removal 
would produce incalculable benefit, by 
ventilating the metropolis; by furnish- 
ing its inhabitants with salubrious pro- 
menades ; by opening waste spaces for 
markets ; and finally, by furnishing that 
rapid and unobstructed communication, 
between the extremities of the metro- 
polis, which is the soul of commer- 
cial prosperity. The leading thorough- 
fare, from the West to the Kast, is, as 
Lord Palmerston and Mr. Baring urged, 
at present greatly and notoriously im- 
peded. The proposed measure, in short, 
unites advantage with ornament; its 
practicability is unquestioned ; it will 
increase the momentum of commercial 
profit; promote the health of the na- 
tion; und contribute to the splendour 
and durability of the metropolis.” 
2H? REMAINS 
