PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS. 617 
necessarily have taken ‘‘ safety’ much earler. We have 
to consider— 
A.—Safety in construction—Stability; and 
B.— Safety in management. 
Under A. (Stability) we-come to what constitutes a con- 
siderable divergence in practice between the architect and 
the engineer. The latter can generally calculate the actual 
stresses which will be put upon each part of his work with 
tolerable certainty, and disposes his material accordingly. 
The former has to make very much greater allowance for 
the various, and often careless, ways in which his structure 
may be used, or misused, and for the needs which may 
arise for making alterations in its subdivision from time to 
time. With the architect, too, a certain excess of weight 
and mass is often necessary, both for stability and appear- 
ance. 
B. (Safety in Management.)—Here, again, the contrast 
in our two branches of practice comes out. No one dreams 
of letting a skilled piece of engineering or mechanism take 
care of itself (probably the law would not allow him to do 
so); but in too many instances the architect has to reckon 
upon the building, once finished, being thenceforth neglected 
and left to take care of itself. 
I might add here, as a third division, “safety from 
violence,” but I will refer to that later under “ military 
engineering.” 
8. Beauty.—My placing this requirement last does not 
mean that I consider it a less absolute necessity than the 
rest. The desire for beauty in form, color, and material is 
one which requires satisfying as much as any other human 
want. Moreover, beauty in the, works of man’s hand may 
be accompanied by expression, and mayserve a much higher 
purpose than merely to please the eye. Who can fail to 
realise this when contemplating some of the great religious 
edifices of Christendom, or the tombs of the mighty dead, 
long past? As regards architecture, the need for more or 
less attention to beauty of design is pretty well conceded, 
but I wish in this address to extend that demand more 
universally. 
It has been well said that an ugly building is offensive, 
mainly from its absolute inherent expression of the selfish- 
ness of its owner and designer in refusing to give to the 
world some adequate quid pro quo for the beauties of 
nature—the charm of horizon and sky—which it intercepts, 
and of which, consequently, it deprives the community. 
