1813.J 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



321 



CANDIDUS'S NOTE-BOOK, 

 FASCICULUS LXXXVII. 



" I must have liberty 

 ^^'ithal, ns large ji charter a* the winds, 

 To blow on whom I please." 



I. I lately called attention to a very feasible improvement, or 

 rather, liiglily desirable completion, of an important public edifice 

 — namely, So'merset-place ; and my remarks appear to have been 

 not entirely thrown away, since they have been noticed by others. 

 I -will now mention another .building — a public one, of considerable 

 importance, and admirably situated in many respects, it having 

 among other advantages that of being placed directly at the ex- 

 tremity of a vista from one of the most frequented thoroughfares in 

 the whole metropolis. Notwithstanding all which, it is in itself a 

 most flagitious architectural monstrosity. Can any one, after tliis, 

 beat a loss to guess what is the building wliich I allude to .'' I 

 myself know of no other so situated, precisely at the end of a vista 

 whose sides enclose it. After this, and my calling it a perfect mon- 

 strosity, can you possibly be any longer in doubt ? Those who still 

 are so, ought'to be left sticking fast in it, and left to help themselves 

 out of it as well as they can. Don't be in a hurry, good folks; take 

 your time, or take a map of London, and examine it, and then — 

 Oh ! you have found it out, have you ? you guess tliat I allude, 

 after my own rigmarole fashion, to the front of Guildhall. Well ! 

 since there is no denying it, I confess it : it is the front of Guild- 

 hall that I mean, — and both mean and unmeaning enough it is in 

 itself. Civic taste runs more in favour of turtle soup than archi- 

 tecture, or the citizens would abridge the number of their annual 

 tureenfuls of that luxurious fare, in order to accumulate funds 

 for a worthy exterior to their banqueting-hall. As far as it goes, 

 their taste is unexceptionable, but it does not go far enough ; it 

 is very palatable, but not at all palatial, — at least, not externally, 

 the exterior of their Hall of Guild being as tasteless as can well 

 be conceived. Instead of turtle, venison, and champagne, it an- 

 nounces water-gruel and cag-mag ; it being the most veritable 

 architectural cag-mag e\'er produced. Some of tlie city folks 

 must, I think, have longed to carry off the Victoria porch from 

 the Palace of Westminster, and plant it as a portal before their 

 Guildhall, with such addition as might be found requisite for 

 filling up the entire frontage. What that last may be, I cannot 

 undertake to say, — there being no published plan from whicli mea- 

 surements can be ascertained. However, that we sliould there 

 have a/HCSi/Hj'fe or duplicate of the Victoria porch at Westminster, 

 is not at all to be desired. We might be very well content with 

 something of similar character in regard to nobleness of idea and 

 grandeur of design. Yet, so huig as there is no absolute occasion 

 for doing anything to the building, nothing is likely to be done ; 

 wherefore, one is almost tempted to regret that it was not burnt 

 down by the fire that broke out close by it some time ago, and 

 threatened to lay hold of it ; but was, unfortunately, laid hold of 

 itself, and arrested before it could perform the good office of 

 ridding us of that scandal to City taste. Pity tliat that taste is 

 more Apician than Vitruvian, — that it patronises turtle soup so 

 much, as to have no patronage left for architecture. 



II. There are buildings which seem to have been intended to 

 exemplify errors and defects, and thereby deter from anything 

 similar being attempted. Among such monitory and well- 

 intentioned works, we may place the front of tlie lloyal Institu- 

 tion, in Albemarle-street, which looks like a huge lodging-house, 

 with as many eyes as Argus, peeping out from between tlie columns 

 of a Corinthian temple, — perhaps that of Argus himself. In- 

 structive it may fairly be called, inasmuch as it makes manifest 

 at a glance the utter preposterousness of attempting to unite 

 together, as is there done, two such irreconcileable systems of com- 

 position as are those of Columniation and Fenestration. Now, I 

 am not quite so straight-laced in my opinions as to object to an 

 order being employed as decoration, but then it should in every case 

 accommodate itself to the structure which is so ornamented, 

 instead of affecting to produce the same expression as a simple 

 open colonnade, where the columns and their entablature alone 

 constitute the e.xtericr of the fabric. Wlien first seen in such a 

 foreshortened view of it that the windows within the intercolumns 

 are concealed, the front of the Royal Institution suggests the idea 

 of an open colonnade upon a noble scale ; but the very next minute 

 we are undeceived, disappointed, — even disgusted. Instead of 

 finding anything like nobleness or grandeur, we are shocked at the 

 positive littleness and meanness which prevail in everything but 



No. 134.— Vol. XI.— November, 18J8. 



the columns themselves. Not only is tliere a most violent and 

 offensive contradiction occasioned by the adoption of conflicting 

 modes and ideas, but there is no sort of keeping whatever as to style. 

 After the columns, there is nothing wliatever of Corinthianism 

 in the other features and details. We find the most florid order 

 applied as decoration to what is itself kept most penuriously bare ; 

 so that richness and poverty of style — ^or, I might say, style and 

 no-style — are coupled togethei-. AVith such absence of all artistic 

 feeling is that pretentious facade treated, that what is meant for 

 its decoration, causes the building itself to appear most insignifi- 

 cant, or even worse. Although both the columns themselves and 

 the front are large enough, the whole is a mass of littleness and 

 prosaic sameness ; for, as if there were rather a paucity than 

 superabundance of windows, the very doors are made to resemble 

 the windows as much as possible : therefore, so far, the design may 

 be said to be all of a piece throughout — yet after so unlucky a 

 fashion, that instead of being a merit, that circumstance becomes 

 a defect. 



III. Taste is subject, not only to wholesale revolutions, but to 

 strange fluctuations and relapses. One day we are disposed to 

 think that taste has taken a better direction than before, and is 

 likely to advance in it if allowed to have its free course ; when, 

 the very next, perhaps, we are startled and shocked, puzzled and 

 perplexed, by some architectural monstrosity which runs quite 

 counter to, and upsets our calculations. Although such is the 

 fact, it seems hardly ci-edible that two structures which are almost 

 within sight of each other, and erected in the very same year, 

 should exhibit such diametrically opposite tastes as do Bridgewater- 

 house and Mr. Hope's new mansion in Piccadilly. Tlie latter is 

 such a vile compound of uncouthness and deformity, as to be 

 nothing less than marvellous. That precious sample of design is 

 said to be by some foreign architect, — which is the only thing to 

 console us ;" yet, let whoever may be responsible for the design 

 itself, the discredit of adopting it falls upon no other than Mr. 

 Hope himself. Had an ignorant employer — one compelled to 

 trust entirely to the taste and judgment of others, been prevailed 

 upon to make choice of such a piece of studied ugliness, he would 

 have been to be pitied, and our astonishment would have been 

 greatly diminished. But JMr. Hope is not the man to be so im- 

 posed upon ; he has the reputation — the hereditary reputation 

 at least, of being an authority in matters of art and taste, 

 wherefore he is almost the very last person from whom so public 

 a display of bad taste was to be apprehended. Besides marvelling 

 much, there is also room for fearing that, through the influence of 

 his name, his example may become contagious, and encourage 

 others to perpetrate similar architectural enormities. One com- 

 fort is, the building seems to be universally disliked and condemned ; 

 while the evil else to be apprehended from such example will now 

 be greatly counteracted by the very opposite one of Bridgevvater- 

 house. What is to be regretted is, tliat instead of occupying as 

 public a situation as the other, the latter mansion is comparatively 

 secluded from notice. Even its Park-front cannot be seen very 

 satisfactorily, all the lower part being completely screened by the 

 garden, witli its fence and shrubbery ; and of as much of it as is 

 visible, the rich and delicate detail becomes almost lost, owing to 

 the impossibility of aiiproaching sufficiently close to inspect it as 

 it deserves. And the other, or south-front, which is somewhat the 

 longer of the two, is where it is almost concealed from public ob- 

 servation, — Cleveland-row being no thoroughfare into the Green- 

 park, but a mere cul-de-sac. 



IV. Bridgewater-house puts its neighbour, "Sutherland," quite 

 out of countenance. The two buildings contrast very strikingly 

 with each other, and afford a very good lesson, and make manifest 

 that decided improvement upon the whole has taken place within 

 the last five-and-twenty years. In point of architectural quality, 

 Sutherland-house is a very ordinary production (by two of the 

 Wyatts) ; mesquin in its ensemble, and insipid and flavourless at 

 the best. There is nothing about it that can really be called style : 

 it has none of the stamina of stj'le, but merely feeble, usi' man- 

 nerism, without a single touch of genuine artistic feeling or taste, 

 or of con amore diligence. Undoubtedly there are many things 

 quite as poor, or even \evy much worse ; therefore, if it be any 

 praise to say that of it, to such praise Sutherland-house is un- 

 equivocally entitled. Such praise, howe\'er, is only condemnation 

 in a milder shape ; and if tlie structure in question is not to be 

 called a failure, it is only because nothing more than dull routinier 

 mediocrity seems to have been aimed at — and it has been produced. 

 Apsley-house is another piece of AVyattism, and is such as to 

 make 'us hope that that ism is now departed from among us for 

 ever. In those days, Sansovino seems to have been quite unknown 

 here, or else must have been put into an Index Expurgatorius. 



42 



