256 Metropolitan Improvements. [Szpr. 
Mr. Nash, at least, there is invention and variety—some mark of ori- 
ginality and of thought, but in those of the third gentleman there is to 
be traced nothing but literal copies of the remains of Greek architecture, 
crowded into heavy masses like that of the Union Club House and the 
College of Physicians, which we are sorry to find is to be repeated on 
the other side of the great square that is to be formed in front of the 
Old Mews. Uniformity is certainly one admirable quality in architec- 
ture, but heaven defend us from it, when it is only to be obtained 
by one deformity being imitated by another. 
While we are on this subject, we cannot sufficiently reprobate the 
uncouth and heavy columns with which Mr. Nash is basing his terrace 
towards the park—only a few of them are yet up, and we trust that he 
will himself become sensible of their very bad effect, in time to alter this 
part of his design. 
Every Londoner owes so much to the exertion and genius of Mr. 
Nash that we wish to have no fault to find with him ; and he has with 
such bon-hommie and honesty acknowledged his faults in the New 
Palace, before the Committee of the House of Commons, that we wish 
him to have no more to acknowledge himself, or for us to find out. 
When we first saw that this Select Committee was formed, we were in 
hope that the monopoly in architecture would have been thrown open, 
but in spite of the evident maladministration as well as malconstruction 
of the office of works from which all improvements proceed, and by 
which they are also executed, they have merely recommended such a 
partial alteration as can do no effectual good. 
While there are so many young architects educated in our first 
offices, as well as students in the schools of Greece and Rome, who are 
waiting only for that opportunity to display their taste and talent, which 
is precluded them by this monopoly, it is a shame that this office is not 
constructed upon a more liberal and extended scale, and that our numer- 
ous public buildings are not laid open to the competition of talent, 
instead of being confined merely to three architects, who, during the last 
ten years, have shared upwards of 100,000/. of the public money. 
