1880.] 



THE Civil, ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



211 



period, to know the result of some trials of (his kind, which will 

 certainly he made on the chalk of ISIerstham and other places. 

 With respect to tlie lower chalk which is not .shattered, there can he 

 no douht that the form of decay here presented, and which consists 

 of the scaling oft' on the face, would be prevented by the facing 

 already alluded to. 



In concluding this pajicr, I trust it will not be considered that I 

 am departing from the object I commenced with, in submitting the 

 accompanying design (fig. 1), for a bridge across a chalk-cutting, in 

 which is shown the method of facing the sides of the excavation, and 

 forming a succession of retreating benches as proposed for one of 

 the Brighton lines of railway. 



• I would submit, (hat the arch of this bridge may be turned with- 

 out centreing, and the bridge entirely built, before the ground below 

 is excavated. The foundations must of course be first cut out, and 

 the abutments carried up to springing height ; the ground must then 

 be cut, levelled, and made smooth to the required curvature deter- 

 miiied on for the arch, and deal battens laid ttown as on an ordinaiy 

 centre. On these the arch may be turned ; and it is evident that 

 much expense would be avoided, both in (he saving of centres and 

 scaffolding, and in the superior facilities of carrying up (he whole 

 building on solid ground. 



London, ISIarch, 1839. SAMUEL HUGHES. 



PUBLIC COMPETITION. 



As public competitions for architectiual designs are now becoming 

 more noticed than they have hitherto been, and tlie public appears to 

 have awoke from the slumber so lon.2 quietly enjoyed, 1 send you 

 some observations on the manner usually resorted to by the committees, 

 who have the management of these suijjects. First, we will premise 

 that in some town, no matter where, a few individuals, frequently a 

 solicitor or proprietor of land, (for almost all great projects originate in 

 the fiist instance from interested motives in the projectors,) con- 

 ceive the idea of erecting a magnificent building, a Town-hall, a 

 Theatre, an Exchange, a Cluircli or otlier edifice. Over a glass of wine, 

 or in this Teetotal age perhaps a cup of tea, the first formation of the 

 project is concocted; each individual present canvasses his friends, to 

 form a committee, and not tbe least importaiU, to elect certain officers 

 for the management of the establishment; this done, a spirit of disinte- 

 restedness immediately pervades the whole assemblv, and it is unani- 

 mously resolved that after certain fmids are cnllected, the committee 

 shall advertise for plans for the intended building. So far it is well 

 enough, and no blame can be attached to any of the members iis far 

 as this commendable self-interest goes ; up to this time no deep science, 

 except that of arithmetic, is called into operation — but here terminates 

 generally the power to do justly, even upon the principle of self in- 

 terest. Well, a large sum is proposed to be laid out, the time is 

 sti|iulated for sending iii the designs, and, as a bait to the unwary, pre- 

 miums are offered forsomeyifr, very few, of the best productions — that 

 is the best productions, in the eyes of the committee : this appears fair 

 enough so far. But when we ask, who the committee are composed of, 

 we obtain such an answer as I received from Liverpool when I put 

 that query to the committee for St. George's Hall ; a few words fiom 

 that letter will serve as a general precedent to committees in answer 

 to too inipiisitive architects ; — but before I give this extract I will just 

 state , the manner of proceeding of the St. George's Hall connnittee ; 

 at the same time let me be distinctly understood, that I do not mean 

 in the least to imply that that committee mean to act unjustly, or that 

 they are not qualified for their ofiice, I merely take it as an example of 

 thedoubtfulappearance they voluntarily throw over their own proceedings, 

 arising from the want of openness and candour in not publishing the 

 names of the committee, so that architects may have an opportunity 

 of forming an opinion how far — not from their situation in life or 

 respectability alone, but from their education and information — such 

 individuals arc didy qualified to set in judgment on an art which 

 requires the closest application and deepest study for years on the 

 part of its professors. 



The first intimation which I had of the proposed erection of St. 

 George's Hall w;rs a plan (with printed resolutions and instructions to 

 architects) from a committee, whish was sent to me by post, but 

 without any name to it, except that of the printer. The printed 

 plan and instructions are very well as far as they go, except as to 

 the time specified for sending in the designs, which is so very limited 

 that, unless competitors neglect a certain business for ait uncertain 

 one, the drawings cannot be prepared with that attention which a 

 building of this extent demands. lunnediately after the receipt 

 of the printed instructions, I wrote to the Chairman of the 

 committee — for I did not then, nor do I now know his name— to 

 request he would give me further information on the subject. In this 



letter I referred him to the report of the Royal Institute of British 

 Architects, and quoted the queries therein named, together with some 

 others 1 thought necessary. The queries are as follows : — 



L By whom are the designs to be examined ami selected ? 



•2 Have any 'lesigns been laid before the panics previously to the 

 competition being proposed? 



3. Have the parties any architect, or person professing to be an 

 architect, in their employ ? 



4. Will any means be adopted to ascertain that the designs can be 

 executed for the sums estimated ? 



5. Will the parties undertake to lay aside all designs, which cannot 

 be executed for the sum estimated ? 



6. Is it the intention of the parties at once to exchirle from the 

 competition all designs not in strict conformity with (heir instructions 

 in every respect ? . , 



7. Will the architect whose design is selected be employed to ex- 

 ecute the work, provided his character and standing in the profession is 

 such as to render him unexceptionable ? 



To which letter I received the following reply :— - 



Liverpool, 14th March, 1839. 

 Sir,— Our answers to the queries of your letter are as follow :— 



1. By the committee; a body of gentlemen of the first respectability in 

 Liverpool. 



2. No. 



3. No. 



4. See ninth paragraph of the printed particular. 



5. See ditto ditto. 



6. It is. 



7. Most probably. 



8. First part — No. Sc^cond part — Yes. 



9. Two premiums— -2oO guineas and 130 guineas. (See advertisement m 



London papers. ) 

 10. Good; no unusual expenditure. 



I am, Sir, your very obedient servant, 



E. G. De,ine. > c 

 Thos. Harvey, J ^'^''■ 

 E. B. Lamb, Esq., Architect, 25, Henrietta-street, Brunswick-square, London. 



It is evident enough how very unsatisfactory the first answer is. 

 Hespectaliility is certainly an important prrt of the qualificitions "f a 

 committee-man, but that'll implies intuitive knowledge in architectui-e 

 I think may be doubted. It would be a novel mode of proceeding if a 

 lawyer were applied to to sit in judgment in a surgical case, and it 

 would be equally novel for a surgeon to usurp the powdered wig and 

 gown of an advocate ; yet in neither case is it necessary to havea 

 knowledge of the principles of taste as well as practice. Yet in archi- 

 tecture a committee is formed of re-peetable persons, without any 

 previous acquaintance— the subject to sit in judgment upon probably 

 80 or 100 dirt'erent designs, comprising peihai^s nearly 1,4U0 draw- 

 ings. If they are not in the first instance bewiidered by lue confu^ioa 

 of subjects before them, and at once get out of their difficulty by 

 applying to a well-known archit'Ct for a design, in-tances of which 

 have more than once occurred, they perhaps form th.ir opiniens from 

 a showy des'gn, without taking- into consideration the correctness or 

 incorrectness of the architecture, the praclicability of itsexecutiiUi, 

 the convenience of accommodation, or the likelihood of its being erected 

 for the sum specified. 



I will now onlv call your attention to the 7th query, and answer. 

 The query is sufficiently explicit to expect an unqualified reply, yet 

 we have one, considering the want of candour ajip-irent in the com- 

 mittee, of a very suspicious nature. I do not frr a moment .lonbt the 

 respectability of the committee ; but they appear determined that no 

 influence of any kind shall bias them, not even that of an inquiry i 

 they are acquainted, as amateurs, with architecture. 



The remaining answers relate merely to unimportant question 

 may just state that the advertisements did not appear in the papers 

 until some days after I had received the printed instrixetions ; at least 

 I did not see them. 



After a lapse of some time I found that other busmess prevented me 

 from time to time giving that consideration to the subject, which its 

 importance required, and upon calculating tin- time it would take to 

 prepare the necessary drawings to my own satisfaction, and without 

 great inconvenience and loss to myself, I determined to write aL'ain to 

 tlie committee fur an extension of time, and also to recommend a 

 public exhibition of the designs previously to any decision being formed 

 by the committee ; a copy of this letter is subjoined : — 



9th April, 1839. 

 fiENTi E.MFN, -I hcg to thauk you for your reply to my letter of in- 

 quiries relative to the St. George's H,dl, Liverpool, and I trust you will 

 accept my apology for again troubling you ; but I am now about to ask a 

 greater favour, and one that, if granted, will be a boon to the profession, 

 who are about entering this competition— namely, lor an extension ol time 



I 



