1840.] 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



333 



be tempted to plead it in extenuation of liaving offered liis back to the 

 saddle, I beg leave to make public the following case and opinion for 

 the benefit of all whom it may concern, and especially of the archi- 

 tectural profession, to whom it is dedicated with the profouudest sen- 

 timents of regard. 



Case. 



Six architects were invited to offer designs and estimates for build- 

 ing a new church. The conditions proposed by the parties making 

 the application are, that the cost of the church shall not exceed £30UU, 

 and that it shall be sufficiently capacious to seat G50 persons in pews 

 of given dimensions ou the ground floor, and certain other requisitions, 

 and they engage to employ the architect whose design shall be most 

 approved. 



From the designs sent in to the parties in consequence of this appli- 

 cation, one is selected by them which they consider the best ; but the 

 cost of carrying this design into execution will be £3750, and only a 

 part of the sittings is provided for in pews of the required dimensions, 

 the remainder being on benches occupying less space. 



It is to be observed, that in the present day it is a common practice 

 to invite architects to make designs, &c., for public buildings, on terms 

 similar to those here stated, and architects of the first eminence have 

 tendered designs accordingly. 



In making a design for a particular building, conformable with cer- 

 tain stipulations, and to be limited to a certain cost, an architect has 

 to bestow much careful consideration, in order to make the accommo- 

 dation req\iired as complete as possible, and, whilst employing the 

 cost to the best advantage, not to exceed it. To effect this, he is 

 obliged to curtail embellishments, which he otherwise might have 

 considered desirable : but another, not restraining himself by the sti- 

 pulations or the limited cost, makes a design much more ornamental 

 and likely to be accepted. The one who faithfully follows his instruc- 

 tions is, therefore, unfairly treated if the parties who lay down the 

 instructions do not themselves act upon them in making their se- 

 lection. 



In this present case, the design which will costi£3750 in its erection, 

 will have less area tlian one in which all the seats were to be in pews, 

 and consequently, not only the extra £750, but also the difference in 

 the quantity of building tend to increase an outlay in the decoration, 

 which it could not have had if the author had followed the instruc- 

 tions issued to the candidates. Besides this, the design varies con- 

 siderably in other particulars from the written instructions. 



Mr. Serjeant Talfourd's opinion is requested. 



1st. Whether tliis application to the six architects created an im- 

 plied contract on the part of those who made it, that if the architects 

 would send in designs, they would select from them one which could 

 be built for £3000, and which should be conformable with the instruc- 

 tions ? 



■2nd. Whether the parties, having selected one which they are 

 carrying into execution at a cost of £3750, and which is not conform- 

 able with the instructions in various particulars, are not liable to the 

 other architects to remunerate them for their professional labours? 



3rd. Whether such liability to remunerate would depend upon the 

 other architects being able to prove that their designs could be severally 

 executed for the £3000, and were conformable with the instructions '. 



Opinion. 



Although the application to the six architects created an honourable 

 obligation to accejit the design of one in accordance with its terms, I 

 regret to be compelled to express my opinion that it did not create an 

 implied contract binding in point of law, and capable of being enforced 

 by action. Regarded as a several contract with each, its enforcement 

 would he attended with this diiiiculty, that no one could prove that^is 

 plan would have been accepted, if the other plan had not been pre- 

 ferred, withont which h could show no damage — and if regarded as a 

 joint contract, it must include as a complaining party the architect^re- 

 /erred, who has no grievance, and will not of course join in complaining 

 of his own success. 



2nd. Unless there is some evidence, whence it can be inferred, that 

 the architects were entitled to expect reninnetation in the event which 

 has happened, beyond the mere invitation, I am of opinion that they 

 cannot make any legal claim for payment in respect of exertions, which 

 have been rendered abortive by the bad faith of the proposers. 



3i'd. Supposing any claim to remuneration existing, as it could only 

 be founded on the failure of the parties inviting the plans to perform 

 the terms of their proposal, it is clear that it must depend upon the 

 ability of the claimant to show his own compliance with those terms. 

 But, for the reason a'ready given, I think the claim, even if made by 



an architect who is able to prove that his design was within the esti- 

 mate, and conformable to the instructions, cannot be supported. 



(Signed) T. N. Talfourd. 



August 15, 1840. 



I have nothing more to add except that I inclose my name and ad- 

 dress in case any thing in this communication should be construed 

 into a personality. 



I am. Sir, your most obedient servant, 



K. P. S. 

 Sept. 15, 1840.- 



CANDIDUS'S NOTE-BOOK. 

 FASCICULUS XIX. 



" I must have liberty 

 AVitlial, as large a cliarier as the winds, 

 To blow on whom I please." 



I. In an article on the Fine Arts in Scotland, (Edinburgh Monthly 

 Review, vol. 5,) the writer says, with reference to some of the recent 

 buildings: "although we cannot but applaud the public spirit with 

 which these undertakings have been projected, we are compelled to 

 speak in less favourable terms of the taste which they display. It 

 unfortunatelv happens that some of them which offend us most, occupy 

 very conspicuous stations, namely, Nelson's Monument, the new Jail, 

 and the new buildings on the North Bridge ; to which, were we to 

 enter into a minute examination, we should feel ourselves under the 

 necessity of making sundry serious objections. But we prefer to draw 

 a veil over the subject, sincerely wishing that the next undertakings 

 of this kind may be conducted with more judgment and in better 

 taste." — This is certainly the very pink of good nature in criticism, 

 but as for the judgment displayed in it — it would not be amiss to dram 

 a veil over that also. To be sure, the passage just quoted, sounds very 

 prettily, and bespeaks a delicate forbearance on the part of criticism, 

 well calculated to render its writer popular with those who expected a 

 castigation from it. Yet if we draw aside the Jliinsy veil of words, 

 what is the writer's naked meaning ? — why this : he is perfectly aware 

 that reproof is richly merited, yet instead of shovving up the offenders, 

 he prefers screening them ; instead of holding up errors and blunders, 

 and failures, by way of wholesome warning for the future, — whicli, per- 

 haps, he felt would be venturing beyond his depth, — he contents him- 

 self, good, easy creature, with " sincerely wishing that the next under- 

 takings of this kind maybe conducted with more judgment and on 

 better taste"! — which amiable phrase maybe handed down to the 

 verv end of the chapter of architectural blunders and failures. Really 

 I prefer the motto of "Old Blue and Brimstone," Judex damnatur cum 

 noctns absolvitur ; and I'm sure there is ;io-se?ise or nonsense enough 

 in some one of the works mentioned in the paper referred to. 



II. Let us, however, try another s.ice of it. " In examining the 

 various public buildings which have been erected in Edinburgh, within 

 the last fyrty years, no very favourable view of the progress of our 

 taste is afforded in the circumstance of the tirst in point of time, 

 namelv, the Register Office, being so much superior in design to those 

 which have followed it; and the recent improvements betraying, while 

 they profess to be formed on the style of the ancients, a strange neglect 

 of the principles of composition, and even of the details which come 

 within the grasp of ordinary talent." This is well observed, and if 

 for 'Edinburgh,' we substitute the word 'London,' all the rest will 

 still hold good. Yes we have imitated the ancients after a very strange 

 fashion indeed, or rather have deluded ourselves into the notion that 

 we were actually running a race with them, while we were only hob- 

 bling alter tliem on classical crutches. Which reminds me of what was 

 once said to one of the Servum Pecus who piqued himself on his 

 classical exactness: your portico may, as you observe, be (t//er the 

 Parthenon, but it lags a confounded way htlinid it." 



III. The next slice of this criticism may not be to every one's taste 

 — more likely, perhaps, to turn some folks' stomachs : " We have also 

 to regret the mama nows so prevalent for the Gothic style, which we 

 cannot help thinking to be inconsistent in every respect, with the 

 manners and the means of the age, and with the great principles of 

 beauty which have been recognized in civilized Europe, as the basis 

 of excellence in architectural composition," — For this opinion we 

 consign the writer over to Welby Pugin, he being one of those who 

 are desperately far gone indeed in the Gothic mania, and therefore 

 likely to take the writer to task to some purpose. 



