1840.] 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



191 



aspirant is unceremoniously thrust out of tlie arena of competition, and all for 

 want of the necessary qualifications in the awarders of patronage. 



In proof of this, I shall, at once, draw your attention to the plans to which 

 the first prize has heen awarded, those of Mr. Elmes. By a narrow inspec- 

 tion of these, it \\ill appear very evident the Committee were incompetent to 

 the task allotted them. 



In Mr. Ehnes' perspective drawing we have a very pretty picture, exquisitely 

 drawn, showing the Railway terminus, on the one hand, and the Assize 

 Courts, on the other, with St. George's-hall occupying a prominent feature in 

 the centre. With this picture, it is very obvious, the Committee have been 

 misled. It is a most successful deception. Now for the proof. The height 

 of St. George's-hall is about eighty-five feet. The fall of the ground, in the 

 direction of the Coiuis, is twenty-seven feet. The height of the Courts 

 at the lowest end is seventy-six feet. There should, therefore, be shown, 

 in the drawings, a difterence of thirty-six feet in their relative hciglits ; 

 hut, as the Courts do not come quite to the extremity of the fall, say thirty- 

 two feet. This difference, however, is most dexterously evaded, and leaves 

 us to imagine the Courts and St. George's-hall will be, to a spectator in the 

 foreground, ven' nearly of one height. Bnt this is not all. In this height of 

 seventy-six feet is included a dead wall, rising fifteen feet above the parapet 

 of the colonnade. This waU is so much set back from the fi'ont that it could 

 not be seen except at a considerable distance from the building. This, in 

 effect, would rob it of fifteen feet more, which, added to the thirty-two feet 

 above, gives us forty-seven feet, or, in other words, taking as nuich height 

 from it, within three feet, as goes to a five-story warehouse. Let it he un- 

 derstood, this is in relation to St. George's-hall ; but, in relation to itself, this 

 dead wall would, practically, reduce the height of the building to sixty-two 

 feet, making the visual difference between the Courts and St. George's-hall 

 about fifty feet. 



The perspective drawing, however, docs not, in the shghtest degree, convey 

 this difference; but, in execution, this would be necessarily exhibited. Another 

 example. The stylobate, at the southwest corner, is shown only six feet six 

 inches high, whereas the real height is about thirteen feet. Moreover, win- 

 dows are shown in the plans, which are omitted in the elevation ; but, had 

 they been shown, they would have spoiled the eft'ectof the picture. 



More examples of this natm'e might he adduced, but let us come to the in- 

 terior arrangements, for, after all, these are, by far, the most important parts 

 to be taken into consideration ; but, it is very evident, Mr. Elmes calculated 

 on the incompetency of the Committee to measure his perspective drawing 

 and compare it with his plans. The event shows he was right. This gentle- 

 man, in the document attached to his plaus, asserts, that he has complied with 

 the printed instructions, and that every apartment contains the full number 

 of square yards required by them. Ilis designs, however, show he has ex- 

 ceeded the limits by thirty-sLx feet in the length of the building, but this is 

 concealed in the plan, and is only to l)e detected by carefully examining the 

 section. His Courts fall considerably short of the areas required, which were 

 290 square yards for the Crown Court, and 320 for the Civil Court ; but the 

 space given by Mr. Elmes is 231 yards for the former and 264^ yards for the 

 latter, making a deficiency of 59 square yards for the one and 555 for the 

 other, making a total deficiency of 114 square yards out of 610; but there 

 are two lobbies at the end of the Courts, situated behind some columns, which, 

 if he mean to include, would leave a deficiency of 744 square yards. From 

 this, it is very clear, the prize was not awarded Mr. Elmes for strict adherence 

 to instructions, although he deliberately says he has done so. 



Let us now take a glance at the arrangements for the transaction of the 

 business of the Courts. The counsel have to ascend 30 feet to their lobing- 

 rooms, and then to descend 26 feet into court in their wigs and gowns. The 

 jury of the Crown Court have allotted them a small room, 15 feet by 10 feet, 

 and for the Civil Court, one, 17 feet 6 inches by 9 feet 6 inches, neither of 

 them possessing a water-closet : this last omission, no doubt, is intentional, 

 — nothing on earth like it to bring obstinate men to a prompt decision. 



The clerk of the indictments'-room is situated 30 feet above the ground 

 floor. The witnesses have to ascend that height from their room, which is 

 on the basement floor, and then to descend to the grand jury-room, situate 

 midway, and, ultimately, to the ground floor into court. The most casual 

 observer must, at once, perceive this to be tlie worst possible arrangement. 

 The floor of the judge's bench is 6 feet 6 inches above the floor of the court, 

 which is just twice the height it should be. The semicircidar form of the 

 courts is objectionable, from the irregular reverberation of soimd proceeding 

 from a curved surface. This has been so fully proved in other buildings 

 sirailaiiy constructed, that various expedients have been adopted to abate the 

 evil. 



Another most important point, the hghting of the interior apartments, is 

 reaUy bad. He has resorted to the most clumsy and awkward expedients, 

 and all to render darkness visible. The judges enter a vestibule totally dark ; 

 and the attorneys, barristers, &c. could not recognise one another in the cor- 

 ridors allotted to them. In short, the general interior arrangements are ex- 

 ceedingly ill contrived, being so disconnected by having four different storeys, 

 beside the one containing the gaol arrangements, while in no case ought it to 

 have exceeded two. 



Now, Sir, for a word or two on the architectural composition of the ex- 

 terior. My opinion is, that, in execution, it woidd prove a complete failure, 

 and disappoint those who have been ea tight by the pictorial effect of the 

 drawings. 



The east, or principal, fa9ade is badly arranged. The portico, contrary to 



the rules of architecture, and I may add a still greater authority, good taste, 

 is denuded of the most essential element of grandeur and beauty ; I mean a 

 noble flight of steps ascending to it : instead of which it is placed on a mural 

 stylobate, having an insignificant door stuck in its centre, as if by accident, 

 or as if the architect had originally forgotten to provide liis principal en- 

 trance. 



The colonnade on either side the portico ouglit to have been full and un- 

 interrtipted in its whole extent : instead of which, it is divided into three 

 parts, with pilastered blocks of masonry, each eighteen feet wide. This, in 

 execution, would totally destroy that simple unity winch ought to characterize 

 that style of architecture the artist himself has chosen. This defect does not 

 strike the observer in the picture, in consequence of the admirable manage- 

 ment of the lights ; but, in the actual structure, this would be most unsightly 

 and oftensive to good taste. Not satisfied with this violation, he has placed 

 a Une of dead wall, fifteen feet high, above the broken line of columns be- 

 neath, w hieli, in effect, would appear to crush if, niieu seen from a distance. 

 This ungraceful method of acquiring height has, I have observed, invariably 

 destroyed the effect of other buildings where it has heen resorted to. I could 

 point out a much greater number of defects ; hut, at best, it is a most ungra- 

 cious task : however, it is better to do so now than allow the building to be 

 quietly erected with all its faults, and then cavil w hen it is too late to apply 

 the remedy. Upon the whole, I consider the decision of the Committee to 

 be altogether an erroneous one, because, if we put the architectural beauty 

 out of the question, the interior arrangements will require to be entirely re- 

 modelled to adapt them to the purposes for which they are intended. 



It would take too much time to point out w hat arrangements really should 

 have heen made ; but here are a few omissions. 



Mr. Elmes has no magistrates'-room, nor a room for the high-sheriff ; he 

 has also omitted the court-keepers' apartments and has not shown cells for 

 prisoners ; he has no room for attorneys consulting apart with a prisoner, 

 neither has he any room where a prisoner can see his friends on obtaining a 

 judge's order. The room he has appropriated for counsel is only twenfy-six 

 feet by seventeen feet six inches, and this is to accommodate upwards of 200 

 barristers, and this number, with the increasing business of the courts, is sure 

 to be greater. In fact, the room in the present coiu'ts devoted to this pur- 

 pose is much larger. 



It might be asked, if so much is abridged and omitted, what has become of 

 the space, seeing that the plans exceed the given amount ? I answer, it is 

 absorbed in large galleries, to accommodate the public attending the Crown 

 Court. This is plausible, no doubt ; but wiiat is the practical result ? That 

 the morbid taste of that portion of the community who dehght in accounts 

 of murder, rape, and robbery will be amply gratified ; whde the other portion 

 of the pubUc attending the Civil Court have but small accommodation. Kx- 

 perience has suflicienfly shown us, that the disgusting details of criminal 

 comis act more by way of precept than example on the auditory w ho frequent 

 them. 



In fact, throughout the interior arrangements tjiere is an utter absence of 

 that knowledge of the business of courts which is indispensible to their pro- 

 per arrangement, .\partments that, according to the practice of law courts, 

 shoidd he together are placed on different storeys, occasionally on opposite 

 sides of the building ; hence would accrue a continual traveUing up and down 

 stairs, and traversing long dark passages, when, with proper arrangement, all 

 these annoyances might have been avoided. 



I think, after this, you must agree with me. Sir, that the Committee have 

 been misled by the beauty of Mr. Elmcs's drawings, which, after all, do him- 

 self, or the artist he employed, great credit. 



Seeing, through the medium of your paper, that a memorial was presented, 

 on this subject, to Council, by two of our resident architects, Messrs. Cun- 

 ningham and Holme, I have been, in consequence, induced to gire their de- 

 signs a more minute examination. 



Their second design, I mean the one with the towers, having a magnificent 

 portico, with a flight of steps leading tip to it. This building woidd have 

 been a real ornament to the town. It combines many desiderata for the pro- 

 motion of architectural effect ; but the towers alone are worthy of Martin. 

 Had they been executed, they would have formed a most prominent archi- 

 tectural featiu'C in the eye of strangers visiting us. I ha\e not studied their 

 design with a view to minute criticism. Had they received the first prize, it 

 is highly probable they would not have been let off so easily : however, there 

 is, at once, boldness and novelty in the conception of their plans, wiiich bias 

 me very much in their favour. As to the interior arrangements proposed by 

 these gentlemen, they are very much superior to Mr. Elmes's. They seem to 

 have forgotten nothing, but have rendered the edifice, as a whole, entirely 

 subservient to the purpose of the courts. Yet, if I recollect aright, these gen- 

 tlemen's designs were, at once, placed hors de combat. 



In their memorial they complained that their plans had been set aside, on 

 the alleged ground of having exceeded the limits pointed out in the instruc- 

 tions ; while, on the other hand, the plans to which the prize u-as awarded 

 had, in a similar manner, also very much departed from fbem. Notvrith- 

 standing which, they were not only allowed to retain their place among the 

 final ten, but actually carried off the prize ! Now, Sir, I cannot help think- 

 ing they had just right of complaint. Bnt how was it met by the Committee, 

 in the person of the Town Surveyor ? At first is was denied, and then ad- 

 mitted, that is, " if the porticos Kere meant to be inclnded" ! This last, Su', 

 is the crowning joke of the whole. Hamlet, with the principal character 

 omitted, is a fool to it. " If the porticos were meant to be included in the 



