1840.] 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECTS JOURNAL. 



.301 



Length of Pipe. Discharge per minute. 



100 feet 30U0 cubic feet. 



200 2230 „ 



300 1370 



400 , 1G40 „ 



500 „ . 1470 



1000 , 1060 „ 



i mile 660 „ 



1 480 „ 



14 330 „ 



Hence, we find that, by improperly proportioning the diameter of the 

 pipe to the length, instead of discharging 3UU0 cubic feet of air per 

 minute, at the distance of a mile and a half, it would have discharged 

 only 330 cubic feet. In fact, that the diameter of the pipe would 

 have been adaj^ted, only, to 100 feet in length. 



To have discharged the 3000 cubic feet of air per minute, the 

 diameter of the pipe for each length, and under the same pressure in 

 the blowing cylinder, would have been as follows:— 



Lcngtit of Pipe. Diameters. 



100 feet 6-4 inches. 



200 „ , 7-2 „ 



300 „ , 7-8 „ 



400 „ 8-2 „ 



500 „ ,... S-5 „ 



1000 ,, , 9-8 „ 



^ mile ..,: 12-0 „ 



1 , 13-5 „ 



1* „ ...= 14-7 „ 



With these diameters, and under any one of the lengths thus given, 

 the 3000 cubic feet of air, per minute, would have been delivered. 

 But, of course, at the end of the pipe, the furthest from the power, 

 the pressure of the air would have been proportionably diminished, or 

 nearly so. This diminution of the pressure of the air, in the vp- 

 cast pipe, in applying the patented modes of raising water from mines 

 of great depth, is an advantage rather than a disadvantage ; it gradu- 

 ally reduces the speed of the ascending current, and allows the water, 

 when delivered at the top of the mine, the more freely to be collected 

 together again in a bod}-, that it may thence flow freely away. 



The down-cast pipe may be so proportioned as to maintain nearly 

 an equal pressure throughout its length. 



Henry Adcock, 

 '** Ciril Engineer. 



One of Mr. Adcock's patent apparatus is now being put down at the 

 Pemberton Colliery, Wigan. 



CANDIDUS'S NOTE-BOOK. 



FASCICULUS xvra. 



" I must have liberty 

 AVitlial, as large a charier as the ninus, 

 To blow on whom I please." 



I. Notwithstanding the flunky sort of admiration professed to be 

 entertained by many lor Sir John Soane, no one, it seems, cares to imitate 

 him, I do not say in his peculiar style — or rather, fantastic mannerism, 

 but in those matters wherein he has set a really good precedent. It 

 is true he is an exceedingly bad authority to follow because his archi- 

 tectural merits and vices are invariably so mixed up together that it 

 requires some study to disentangle, them. While the outside of his 

 house in Lincoln's Inn Fields exhibits the most paltry and puerile 

 taste, and has a most offensive gira-crack and gin-palace physiognomy, 

 the interior offers much that deserves to be adopted : not that it is by 

 any means particularly good in itself, but on account of the hints and 

 ideas as to contrivances and effects, which it affords, and the sugges- 

 tions it holds out. While there is much in it that is exceedingly poor 

 or even paltry, — what no one would think of copying, or rather would 

 be at some pains to avoid, there are several things which might fre- 

 quently be imitated, and applied in a variety of ways, and iii many 

 cases with little trouble or expense. For instance, the very same 

 contrivance which is adopted in tht Picture Cabinet, is susceptible of 

 many modifications, some of which might be conveniently applied to 

 screens, bookcases, and similar pieces of furniture, witliout fitting-up 

 the whole of a room in that mannei'. 



II. I find that Bartholomew is exceeding angry with me, pouring 

 cut the vials of his wrath upon my head, asserting that Caniuus would 

 be a more suitable name for me, and among other compliments in- 



sinuating that I am descended from Gehazi the servant of Elisha — which 

 is certainly tracing back niv genealogy further back than that of any 

 one now living. But what if after all if my real name should tiun out 

 to be White, and that I have taken the liberty of latinizing it; instead 

 of arrogating to myself by mv assumed appellation any particular stock 

 of Candour? Any one who is not absolutely as blink-eyed as B. might 

 instantly have perceived from the very motto I have chosen that I 

 disclaim all pretensions to greater candour than my neighbours. Be- 

 sides there are two different sorts of candour; — oiie of which consists 

 in ingtmioushj confessing our own faults, the other, in ingeniously ex- 

 posing those of o\ir friends ; which last is that possessed by me. After 

 all, whether I am candid and indulgent, or quite the reveVse, has no- 

 thing to do with the matter: what chiefly concerns my readers is 

 whether my opinions are well founded and deserving of consideration. 

 Even Bartholomew himself does not pretend to say the contrary- — at 

 least he has not cared to call any one of them in question, by pointing 

 out its absiu-dity and fallacy. 'His compliments apart, the worst it 

 would seem, that he can find to say of me is that I am gi\en to bark- 

 ing — which is no more than I myself confess in the verv passage he 

 has quoted, — <uid that I like to have all the "cutting" to myself. 

 Gra.nting this last allegation to be well founded, though I am not con- 

 scious of having uttered any thing that can be construed as a desire to 

 monopolize that operation; — granting this, I say, it would follow that 

 there exists a perfect harmony of tastes between myself and Bartholo- 

 mew, for he is not at all sparing of cuts at his professional brethren ; 

 and he not only barks, but growls too, most doggedly. This man who 

 makes such a pleasant outcry against cutting and maiming, makes no 

 scruple of stabbing poor John Nash's reputation, asserting that he was 

 not gifted with one of the accomplishments "so necessary to an archi- 

 tect." Nay he may be said to massacre reputations by wholesale, 

 damning, as he does, in the lump, both the taste and practice of pro- 

 fessional men at the present day ; — for which he may perchance one day 

 or other be sainted by them, that is converted into a Sf, Bartliolomew, 

 by being flayed alive. — Most surely wdieu he calls Holland, who died 

 in 1306, one of the last of England's real aj'chitects, it is tantamount to 

 a sweeping condemnation of all the members of the profession at the 

 present day. Nevertheless poor Uttle Bartholomew aflects to be 

 shocked at me ; — which is undoubtedly highly amusing. 



III. There is, I admit, one very great point of diftereuce between us, 

 for as he belongs to the profession himself, Bartholomew may proba- 

 bly feel that he has a right to abuse it as much as he pleases, without 

 any body's interfering to hinder him ; whereas I being no more than 

 one of those whom he denounces as self-made critics, cannot reason- 

 ably look to enjoy a similar privilege. With all due defei-ence, how- 

 ever to Saint Bartholomew, I conceive that all critics are and ever 

 have been self-made or self-constituted : at least I never heard of 

 their taking their degrees as such at any college ; or of their being 

 appointed to tiiat capacity by Her Majesty ; or of critics being made 

 by Act of Parliament. Critics, I should fancy, are one and all volun- 

 teers in the service they engage in, — and of course myself among the 

 rest. The day will perhaps arrive, when matters will be managed far 

 differently, and we critics be elected in the same manner as members 

 of the House of Commons. In the meanwhile the Gwilts and the 

 Bartholomews must submit whether they will or no to our piesent 

 self-election. One comfort for them is that they are not obliged to 

 read our impertinences, or to waste their precious time in refuting what 

 they would persuade others is only arrant ignorance. It certainly is extra- 

 ordinary that architects — and architects alone, should show a disposition 

 to gag criticism and stifle discussion, or even the expression of opinion. 

 Notwithstanding which the generality of them, I beUeve, have no par- 

 ticular aversion even to ignoramusses giving their opinion to the world, 

 when it happens to be complimentary to themselves, and of course, 

 most sensible, and most orthodox. 



IV. Whether Mr. Wightwick will be considered altogether ortho- 

 dox by Bartholomew, is to me a matter of very great doubt, or rather 

 no doiibt at all ; the avowed object of the author of the " Palace of 

 Architecture," being to popularize the study of the art, to divest it of 

 all that mystery and luunbug which have so long rendered it an ar- 

 canum, — an art which the public are no less funnily than modestly- 

 called upon to admire with all possible admiration, and assured in the 

 very same breath that they can neither comprehend nor properly relish 

 it I " With what unspeakable horror must such gentlemen asGwiltand 

 Bartholomew- read the following sentence in Wightwick's book : " and 

 now we would finally address a concluding question to our fair coun- 

 trywomen. Can they do better than give some of their leisure to an 

 art so essentially decorative as that of architecture?" This is liberality 

 with a vengeance ! Is there no salic law to prevent this threatened 

 female tyranny over architecture ? Why in another generation we 

 shall have a swarm of Candidi or rather Candidae in petticoats ! By 

 the shades of Vitruvius and Palladio, Wightwick's doctiine is most 



2 S 



