1848."! 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER ANB ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



SiS 



Eastern Counties, 

 1843, 

 1846, 

 1H47, 

 Great Western, 

 1845, 

 1846, 

 1847, 



Cattle. 

 20,661 

 77,804 

 82,491 



Cattle. 

 14.058 

 20,389 

 28,231 



York and North Midland, Cattle. 



1845, 15,364 



1846, 40,319 



1847, 41,931 

 York and Newcastle, Cattle. 



1845, 19,685 



1846, 44,146 



1847, 41,399 

 Lancashire and Yorkshire, Cattle 



1845, 9,686 



1846, 10,448 



1847, 22,449 

 South Western, Cattle. 



1845, 2,763 



1846, 6,390 



1847, 13,565 

 Newcastle and Carlisle, Cattle. 



1845, 3.782 



1846, 11,009 



1847, 14,599 



Sheep. 



125,504 



216,775 



469,721 



Sht-ep. 



172,264 



165,860 



201,901 



Sliet'p. 



88,143 



109,992 



84,656 



Sheep. 



20 000 



68,971 



88,287 



Shfep. 



149,022 



66,029 



75 011 



Sheep. 



53,441 



62,454 



75,365 



Sheep. 



37,525 



49,263 



66,628 



Swine. 



4,228 



14,430 



48.359 



Swiue. 



52,443 



63,702 



14,360 



Swine. 



31.708 



5,255 



7,014 



Sv\ine. 



5,000 



5,531 



9.142 



Svvioe. 



27,485 



40,346 



20,733 



Swine. 



3.089 



5,412 



3,462 



Swine. 



5,116 



8,291 



9,759 



The Belgian cattle traffic from the returns was as follows :— 



Cattle. Sheep & Swine, 



1843, 8 609 33,562 



1844, 12,691 39,056 



1845, 7.597 29,704 



Taking the saving by conveyance of cattle on railways at 10 lb. 

 per quarter, 2 lb. for sheej), and 5 lb. for swine ; ur -Hi lb. per beast, 

 8 lb. for sheep, and 20 lb. for swine, the gross saving in 1846 will 

 be — 



On 370,000 cattle, 14,800,000 1b. 

 1,250,000 sheep, 10,000 000 



850,000 swiue, 17,000,000 



Total, 41,800,000 lb. 



The gross saving of animal food on the cattle conveyed by rail- 

 way in 1847 was as follows : — 



On 500,000 cattle, 20,000,000 lb. 

 2,000,000 sheep, 16,000,000 

 390,000 swine, 7,800,000 



Total, 43,800,0001b. 



In the late report on Sniithfield market, some evidence is given 

 bearing on the question of the conveyance of cattle by railway : — 



Mr. R. Healy said that there is a much greater quantity of dead 

 meat brought to the London markets in consequence of railway 

 communication. By means of the railways, great quantities of 

 hind-quarters of mutton are sent up from the country, as the 

 butchers there kill large quantities of sheep and sell the fore- 

 quarters at home amongst the population there, and send the hind 

 .quarters by railway to London. 



Mr. Langham, a butcher, said that country-killed meat is better 

 than town-killed meat, and that it comes in excellent condition 

 from Scotland. It is the general opinion of butchers that this is 

 the case. 



Mr. Hicks, the salesman, said that he has a very large quantity 

 of meat sent up from the country by railway, and that it is not 

 damaged by the journey even in hot weather. He has used the 

 electric telegraph to obtain a supply of meat from the country. A 

 communication was sent the same night by the country grazier 

 that he would send up 600 or 700 stone of meat by the next morn- 

 ing's train. At 1 o'clock in the morning it started from Ipswich, 

 and before 5 o'clock it was in his premises in Newgate market 

 on sale, having been alive the day before. Mr. Hicks has some- 

 times 300 carcases on a Monday. 



Mr. Langham likewise stated, that since the railways have been 

 opened a country trade in meat has been growing up. Beasts 

 have been sent from Smithfield to Liverpool, and he has seen 

 immense quantities of meat going down to Birmingham. The south 

 country also is supplied from the London market with beef- 

 Brighton in particular. The Brighton butchers are frequently 

 seen in Smithfield purchasing cattle, which they take down with 

 them the same day. Sometimes as many as 300 or 400 beasts have 

 gone down by the Birmingham railway on a Monday. 



These facts will show the nature of cattle traffic on railways. 



THE " WESTMINSTER REVIEW," No. XCVII. : 



THE NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT. 



Although political topics and subjects of a grave utilitarian east 

 form the staple of this periodical, with only occasionally an article 

 of a lighter cast, the '■'■Westminster" has in its time, and espe- 

 cially under its present editor, contributed more largely to archi- 

 tectural information and criticism than either of its rivals. In 

 fact, the " Edinburgh" has scarcely once, during tlie whole of its 

 long career, touched upon aught connected with architecture. 

 One prevalent fault in Review articles of the kind, is the dull and 

 impertinent prosing with which they are eked out, in order to fill 

 up a printed sheet, or as much more as may be the space allowed, 

 although all that the writer has to communicate would perhaps 

 occupy not more than a couple of pages. In the present instance, 

 we have no such complaint to make : the writer comes at once to 

 the point, and criticises in succession (besides the New Houses of 

 Parliament) the New Treasury Buildings, Buckingham Palace as 

 altered by Mr. Blore, the British Museum, and the Royal Ex- 

 change ; anfl his remarks are upon the whole so good, as far as 

 they go, although we do not subscribe our own opinion to every 

 one of them, that we wish he had entered more into particulars 

 with regard to the three last-mentioned structures. How they 

 and the " Houses" themselves are spoken of, except as regards 

 ability on the part of the writer, we have not yet said. With 

 respect to the Palace, indeed, it may be taken for granted that his 

 opinion is anything but favourable, that unhappy building being 

 abandoned to universal derision; but the writer is severe upon 

 the others also — and not least of all, or rather more especially 

 so, upon the Houses of Parliament, which proves that he does not 

 take his cue from the vulgar flatteries of the public press, heaped 

 upon Mr. Barry and his " great work." In short, he expresses 

 himself exceedingly dissatisfied with that edifice ; nor is he by 

 many the only one who is so, for even among our own acquaintance — 

 those, too, whose judgment in matters of architecture is entitled 

 to some deference — we have heard opinions equally strong in dis- 

 favour of it. One serious complaint alleged against it is, that 

 however well the florid and exuberant embellishment bestowed on 

 the river-front may shine or sound in descri])tion, or show itself 

 in an elevation drawing, it is all but entirely lost in the building 

 itself; — that there is abundant sculptural decoration of some sort 

 or other may be seen, but it cannot be at all made out. The de- 

 coration is, besides, not only too minute, considering the vast 

 extent of the river-front, and the distance of the nearest accessi- 

 ble point from which it can be seen by the public, but is also so 

 profuse, as quite to destroy " repose." ^Vbile this is to be re- 

 gretted for artistic reasons, it is also to be condemned for financial 

 ones ; an immense expenditure having being incurred for mere 

 ornament, to scarcely any purpose at all. Surely tlie water-side of 

 the building might very pro|)erly have been made some degrees 

 less ornate than the other fronts, and still have been sufficiently 

 finished-up, and sufficiently dignified and imposing, — nay, even 

 more efl^ective in its ensemble than it now is. Hitherto, stingy par- 

 simoniousness has been allowed to betray itself more or less in 

 nearly all our public buildings, where the effect of what is perhaps 

 a handsome facade in itself is sadly marred by the meanness of 

 plain brick walls, shabby chimneys, and other eye-sores that come 

 into sight in every angular view of the building, — as is most 

 ofi^ensively the case in the new fayade of the Britisli Museum, 

 notwithstanding that it is decked-out in Ionic pomp, or what is 

 meant for such. In the Houses of Parliament, the architect has 

 fallen into the contrary extreme of error ; and anxious to avoid 

 the reproach of parsimoniousness, has incurred that of extrava- 

 gance. 



Besides wasteful excess of decoration, the writer in the " West- 

 minster" urges against the "Houses" what he considers two 

 capital and now irremediable defects ; one of them being the want 

 of greater loftiness in the river-front, more especially .as the 

 situation itself is very low ; the other, the position of the Victoria 

 Tower. No doubt, when all the towers in the rear of the river- 

 front shall come to be completed, and the sheds, coffer-dam and 

 other obstructions are cleared away, some expression of loftiness, as 

 well as variety of outline, will be imparted to the general ensemble ; 

 but then that will again be counteracted by the much greater 

 loftiness and bulk of the Victoria Tower. If exigences of plan 

 required that the royal entrance should be just at the south-west 

 corner of the pile,— if it was impossible to bring in that entrance 

 as the central feature of the west side— or perhaps the east one, 

 by forming a commodious carriage approach to it along the terrace 

 —there was at all events no imperious necessity for carrying up 

 such an enormous tower over it as is now intended to be done. 

 It is true, in many mediaeval edifices which have grown up by 



