66 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



[Fkbkuary 



the former — -their incompetency to juil^e of (lesiiriis sulimittcd to 

 them, tofjetlier witli tlieir chililish iletermin;itioii to exercise tlie 

 privilcfre of pleasini; themselves witliout beiiiff accouiitalile to iiny 

 one for \vli;it they do — that encourages so miidi paltry design. 

 The tel est iiiStiv pliiixii- will not excuse deformity in the eyes_ of 

 others, who will in turn exercise tlieir own privilege of expressing 

 censure and ridicule where they are deserved — a consideration that 

 ought to he seriously taken to mind by those who have the direct- 

 ing of far more impcu'tant edifices than school-houses. 



"Something of external comeliness" — we again i|uote from the 

 preface — " should be assigned, as matter of course, to the humblest 

 of sucli erections ; and, under the direction of good taste, useful- 

 ness of purpose and beauty of design may be made mutually to 

 subserve to each other, even when the latter is but a secondary 

 consideration." It may be further obser\ed, that it is not so much 

 positive lieauty as well-marked character and effectiveness of 

 ensenMe, that o\ight to be studied for buildings in which a certain 

 degree of Iiomeliness is no more than becoming. And this has 

 upon the whole been well accomplished by .Air. Kendall — though, 

 as was to be ex])ected, more happily in some instances than in 

 others. The collection consists of both executed and unexecuted 

 designs, each of which is shown in a perspective or pictorial view 

 of it, as well as by a [dan and elevation ; and there is also letter- 

 press to each subject, containing remark as well as mere explana- 

 tion. The unexecuted designs are five in number ; the others are 

 those of the following buildings which have been erected by tlie 

 author : C^hilderditch School, Essex ; the Poor Boys' School, the 

 Poor Girls' School, and the Commercial School, all at Bury St. 

 Edmund's; the building for the Battle and Langton National 

 Schools, at Battle ; Willesden School; and the Infant School at 

 Stanmore, which last is said in the account given of it to have 

 been erected in 1845, "at the sole expense of Miss Martin, a lady 

 distinguished during her residence in that beautiful village for her 

 benevolence and extended charities." 



All the designs may be designated Old English in style, although 

 it is not that of one and the same period ; nor do they all show the 

 same mode of construction, some of them being in imitation of 

 the " lialf-timbered" houses, others of red l)rick with stone dress- 

 ings and (juoins. Tlie Elizabethan style has been applied very 

 happily in what strikes us as being the best design of all — namely, 

 the school buildings at Buttle, in wliich, while the character of the 

 style itself is not only well kept up but expressed witli gusto, the 

 cluiracter of the particular kind of building is most unmistakenably 

 ])ronounced. Althougli perfectly regular, both in the arrangement 

 of its masses and the features of its elevaticui, the whole composi- 

 tion, as shown in the perspective view, is pleasingly varied and 

 higlily picturesque, yet sufficiently sober withal. Thie last subject, 

 design No. 5, simws a rather extensive and complex group of 

 buildings in the Tudor style, and in perspective makes a \ery pic- 

 turesque composition. Independently of the interest and merit of 

 the designs themselves, the artistic skill displayed in the pictorial 

 representations of them cannot fail to excite admiration. Tliey 

 are very superior productions of their kind, — studies of trees and 

 figures as well as of l)uildings. Owing to which, to the subject 

 itself, and to tlie tasteful manner in which tlie work is got up in 

 every respect, we may anticipate for it a highly-favourable reception 

 even among tliosewiio liardlymake any pretensions to amateurship 

 in architecture. 



HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE. 



We have received the following communications in reference to 

 Mr. Elmes's papers, and wliich we lay before our readers : — 



Sib — In your Jmirnal for November last, page 338, there is a 

 statement which, I fear, may lead some of your readers into error. 

 In the life of Stuart it is said, " Preparation-> for his works were 

 made with siu^h rapidity, that in 17(j8 they were jiresented to the 

 public under the title of 'The Antiquities of Athens, iVc. &c.' 

 4 vols, folio, 1768." Now, the First Volume was pulilislied, as my 

 two original copies show, by IIaberk(U-n, in ITfi'i, and nothing is 

 said in tbe title-page of four volumes (althougli in tlie body of tlie 

 work two more volumes are referred to, and tim) only) ; it is dis- 

 tinctly marked Vol. the First. Vol. II. was iiulilislied by Nichols, 

 in 1787 ; Vol. III. also by Nichols, in 1794 ; and Vol. IV. by Tay- 

 lor, in 1816 — that is, not till 48 years after the time above referred 

 to. 



In page 340, in the life of Sir Robert Taylor, i.s one of those 



commonplace and sweeping attacks so const vntl/ direrted against 

 the late IJuildiiig .-Vet, and in which I never did, and do not now, 

 join. That it had some defects, as well as some omissions, I am 

 free to own, as well as that in these respects it reipiire 1 alteration 

 — perhaps in no respect more than in its pi'ovision for tlie jiayment 

 of expenses of party-walls by the owner of tlie improved rent, a 

 term which tlie result proved to be alike uncertain and unjust. 

 But that it was infinitely better as a whide tli;in its successor, is, I 

 believe, now almost universally admitted, and I could wish those 

 who so hivisly condemn the late Act in the bulk, would condescend 

 to explain more fully those particular parts of it against wliich 

 their attacks are directed, or to which they object. 



A Constant Kkadeii. 



Sir — The series of articles entitled a " History of Architecture 

 in Great Britain," contains some opiiii<uis and remarks that ajqie r 

 to have been uttered rather hastily. I hope, therefore, you will 

 allov/ me to animadvert <ui what ought not, for the interest of art, 

 to be suffered to ]kiss uncontradicted. 



To begin by correcting some of the mistakes : — The design of 

 the India-House is attributed to Jupp, the Company's surveyor, 

 who was only emphiyed to execute the works, the design itself 

 being by Holland, as is explicitly stated in the biographical article 

 on the latter in the Sujiplement to the " Penny Cychqii^dia." 

 Jupp certainl)' does not ajipear to haxe been of any note at all in 

 his profession, therefore it is not very likely that he was the real 

 author of the edifice ; or at any rate, if such claim was to be sub- 

 stantiated for him, that of Holland ought to have been not over- 

 looked but formally set aside. — In speaking of the College of Sur- 

 geons, Air. Elmes describes in the present tense the original front, 

 or rather the portico as it originally existed previously to the front 

 being extended and re-modeUed by Mr. Barry, who, he says, added 

 two columns to the portico ; were which the case, it either must 

 have been at first only a tetrastyle, or would now be an octastyle 

 one. The fact is, that instead of adding, Barry merely transposed 

 two of the columns, taking them from the west end of the piu-tico, 

 and putting them at the other, thereby making what had been the 

 first intercolumn from the east, the centre one, and so bringing it 

 into the axis of the lengthened faf ade. He also fluted the sliafts of 

 the columns, and carved the bed-mouldings of the cornice. The 

 writer's opinion of the College of Surgeons in its original state, 

 appears to be infinitely moi"e favouralile than discriminating, he 

 being pleased to refer to it as an " example of the genius of this 

 tasteful architect," viz. Dance, — whereas, as designed by him, the 

 whole front was a most barbarous and vulgar parody of the st)K> 

 affected for it. So far from the columns being " tastefully adapted" 

 to the building behind them, there was no sort of adaptation at 

 all, nor the slightest coherence in regard to character between the 

 main building and the portico. Many may be unable to recollect 

 what sort of figure the original front cut, but views of it are in 

 existence, which assuredly strongly contradict the praise which 

 Mr. Elmes has implicitly bestowed upon it. 



With regard to the frimt of Guildhall, by the sanu^ "tasteful 

 architect," we are told apologetically that it " is amenable to no 

 laws." That, notwithstanding its aiming at Gothic or something 

 of Gothic character, it is so far from conforming with as to violate 

 its leading princijiles. Yet that might have been excused, had but 

 consistent and artistic expression of its own been imparted to the 

 facade. Tluuigh evidently very reluctant to admit anything tii 

 the disparagement of Dance, even Mr. Elmes is obliged to abandon 

 the exterior of (Jiiildhall to unmitigated censure and ridicule, and 

 remark that its " faults are nioi-e than compensated for by bis well- 

 pro]iortioned, original, and elegant chamber for the Common- 

 council, i!v-c." Ailmitting that tlie latter were very greatly supe- 

 rior to what it actually is, it would not indemnify fiu- the positive 

 and striking ugliness of the exterior, which of course stamps the 

 character of the building in general ojiinion, and is so radical a 

 defect that it admits of no cure short of an entirely new fa,-ade ; 

 whereas any de'Rjct or falling-short internally in such an apartment 

 as the Common-OQuncil-room might have been easily remedied at 

 any time. \ 



in his quality of Mstorian the writer has fallen into a most 

 glaring mistake when he says that Jeffrey Wyatt was selected by 

 William IV., as his chief architect, to enlarge and embellish 

 AVindsor Castle, it being notorious to every one, that he was em- 

 ployed by George IV., at the time of whose decease the works were 

 advancing towards completion, for he had begun the new a]iart- 

 ments. Equally notm-ious is it that it was tieorge, not 'William, 

 who changed the architect's name to that of ^Vyattville. 



Wilkins is not treated very indulgently by the historian ; on the 

 contrary, is spoken of with a degree of asperity that contrasts 



