1846."] 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



295 



Experiment 7. — 26 bricks, with 1 portland cement and 5 sand, 

 broke down with 74. lb. at end. 



Experimnt 8. — 14 bricks, all portland cement, with a wheel of 

 9 cwt. in the centre, broke down witli 17 lb. at end. 



Experiment 9. — 16 bricks, cemented together with 1 portland 

 cement and 1 sand, and suspended at both ends, broke down with 

 15 cwt. placed in a scale suspended on the centre. {See fig. 2). 



Fig. 2. 



Experiment 10. — A block of portland stone, 2 ft. 11 in. long, 

 and 9 by 9 inclies, broke with a weight of 38 cwt. {See fig. 3.) 

 ffote. — A block, cemented with roman cemeot, would not bear the 

 weight of the stone, iu a similar position. 



Fig. 3. 



Trials in a Hydraulic Press. 



Experiment 11. — A block, all portland cement, 18 inches high 

 and 9X9 inches, bore a pressure equal to IO85 tons on the square 

 foot. 



12. — A mixture, 1 sand and 1 cement. 



Expt. 



80 tons sq. foot. 



80 



44i 



Expt. 13. — A mixture, 4. „ 1 „ 



Expt. 14. — A mixture, 7 „ I „ 



Experiment 15. — A block, all roman cement, broke at 2-2i tons. 



Experiment 16. — A mixture, 4 parts sand and 1 roman cement, 

 would not bear any pressure. 



Experiment 17. — A block of portland stone, Ig in. X 1 in., broke 

 up at 23 cwt. 



Experiment 18. — A block of the portland cement, the same 

 dimensions, broke with 18 tons. 



New ScreiP-Cutting Machine. — A plan of cutting iron screws is stated to 

 have been invented by Mr. P. H. Gates, of Chicago, Illinois, by which the 

 power of one man will cut per day, 700 half-inch, 500 three-quarter inch, 

 400 one inch, and 300 one-and-a-half inch bolts. The advantages claimed 

 for this plan over the common die are, its dispatch in doing work ; its dura- 

 bility, having cut over 4,000 bolts with one die, without any repairs; instead 

 of jambing or driving the thread into shape it cuts it out, the same as in a 

 lathe, leaving the thread of solid iron, which cannot be stripped off as is 

 usual with those cut by tbe common die, and it will do the work by once 

 passing along the bolt, making the thread perfect. The die, it is said, can 

 be made by ordinary workmen, with far less expense than the comtuon die, 

 and when made, is not at all liable to get out of repair. 



REVIEWS. 



The Palace of Westminster. Imperial quarto, Part I. London : 

 Warrington and Son, 1848. 



At present, we can hardly pretend to give an opinion as to the 

 merits of a series of architectural illustrations from the three en- 

 gravings in this first Part ; nor are we able even so much as to say 

 to what extent it is intended to carry tlie publication, and what will 

 be the entire number of plates, there being neither prospectus nor 

 advertisement on the wrapper to afford that somewhat desirable ii>- 

 formation. What strikes at the very first as objectionable is, not 

 that the plates are published miscellaneously while the work is 

 coming out, but that it seems they are intended to be bound up so, 

 instead of being duly arranged according to some sort of order and 

 sequence. The subjects contained in this Part I. are : Plan of the 

 Principal Floor, the Royal Court (a perspective view), and an Ele- 

 vation of the lower part of the Victoria Tower, which are designated 

 in the heading of the descriptive letter-press accompanying each of 

 them, as Plate I., II., III., respectively. Wherefore, although 

 the descriptive letter-press itself is not paged — which looks ag 

 if it had been intended to leave it to purchasers to arrange the 

 subjects ultimately to their own fancy — sucli accommodation is 

 now frustrated by the plates being numbered in the letter-press, 

 and in our opinion quite uselessly, there being no corresponding 

 numbers on the plates themselves, so that the binder can be guided 

 only by their titles. We almost fancy tliat the " numbering ' must 

 have occurred through mere oversight ; and if so, now that the 

 very great inconvenience attending it is pointed out, it ought to 

 be abandoned at once, — should which be done, cancels ought to be 

 given of the descriptions already published. , 



As matters have been managed, Plate 1. is a Plan of the Princi- 

 pal Floor ; but surely that will not be the only illustration of the 

 kind, or else the work will be singularly defective and unsatisfao- 

 tory. Hardly can we believe that it is not intended to give some 

 other plans — at any rate that of the ground-floor, it being quite in- 

 dispensable for properly understanding the structure. The floor 

 immediately above the principal one ouglit also to be shown. Be- 

 sides which, there are many portions of the Principal Floor 

 itself which require to be exhibited upon a larger scale, and much 

 more in detail ; the scale of the general plan being no more than 

 that of an inch to 120 feet, which is so small that it is imposible to 

 measure from it with any sort of accuracy some of the lesser 

 rooms ; — wherefore it would not have been amiss had the respective 

 dimensions, according to actual measurement, been inserted in the 

 " Key to the Plan." With regard to the plan itself, it does not 

 extend beyond Westminster Hall ; consequently, it does not show 

 what is to be done on tfie west side of the Hall, along Margaret- 

 street and New Palace-yard. Nor is the plan quite so distinct as 

 it might be, owing to all the parts that are under roof being shaded, 

 and only the open courts and areas left plain or white. So far 

 indeed distinction is made between the covered and uncovered 

 parts of the plan, but there might just as well have been greater 

 distinctness also produced by making tlie walls considerably 

 darker than the rest. In our opinion, shading of the kind might 

 have been dispensed witli altogether in what is an upper-floor plan, 

 it being quite sufficient to treat the ground-floor one in that man- 

 ner. Or — for the disagreeable doubt now comes across us — is 

 this plan to be the only illustration of the kind .'' We will not 

 believe that it is until we can no longer disbelieve it. Even a 

 ground-floor plan will not be quite satisfactory unless it be made 

 to show — except that be done in a separate situation's-plan, on a 

 lesser scale — the relative position of \Vestrainster Bridge, Henry 

 VII.'s Chapel, and other circumstances of the peculiar locality. 

 Else, how are those who are quite unacquainted with that locality, 

 to form any notion of it ? A publication like the present, more 

 especially its subject being taken into account, is not likely to be 

 confined to this country, but will be eagerly turned to abroad, 

 wherever the fame of the Palace of Westminster and its architect 

 has reached ; and how are those who possess no other information 

 than what tliey can derive from plans, to understand the difliculties 

 imposed upon the architect by tlie site, and make due allowance 

 for what must strike tiiem as being defective and unsatisfactory in 

 the disposition of the west or principal land-side of the edifice ? 

 For our part we should say, that besides a general situation's-plan, 

 there ought also to be a plan of all the buildings as they existed 

 before the fire. And undoubtedly a plan of the kind ought to be 

 inserted in this publication, if only as a historical document. 



Plate II. shows, in a perspective view, a part of what is called 

 the Royal Court, it being that into which the state carriage and 



