1819.1 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



227 



rnofs, it being of rare occurrence to finJ the wood entirely concealed, as at 

 Knapton and t'algrave. 





Fig. 3.— Boof over Chancel of St. Mary's Church, Leicester. 



"The Roof over the Chancel of St. Mary's Church, at Leicester (woodcut, 

 fig. 3), is similar in general design to the Pulham roof, hut of a much ruder 

 construction : this roof, though a double-framed one, has no ridge-piece, the 

 rafters being simply crossed and halved, and pinned together, as in an ordi- 

 nary trussed-rafter roof." 



As a coneludiiig specimen of the work, we select a Plate which 

 describes the Roof over the Nave of Freslingfield Church, Suf- 

 folk, (Plate XVI.) 



MILITARY AND CIVIL ENGINEERING. 



1. An Essay on a Proposed A'eu' System of Fortification^ with Hints 

 for its application to our Ahdional Defenses. By James Fergls- 

 soN, M.R.I.B.A. London : Weale, 1819. 



2. Aide Memoire. Weale. 



Fortification is now commonly looked upon as a special subject, 

 exclusively belonging to the military engineer; and it will strike 

 some with equal surprise to see a work on fortification by a civilian, 

 and to find it reviewed in our columns. If, however, fortification 

 has come to be regarded as a special art and mystery, it is only of 

 late : it was not always so, neither does there seem to be any good 

 reason for it. In most cases, it is true, the subdivision of employ- 

 ment leads to the improvement of a given art; but in fortification, 

 it may be questioned whether such has been the result, and for this 

 very good reasons may be assigned. AVhenever the subdivision of 

 employment is carried to the extent that but few persons are en- 

 gaged in a particular branch, then evil must be produced, because 

 there is a want of emulation among the professors, a want of phy- 

 sical and moral force for the development of the subject, and, 

 above all, the want of a sufficient public to criticise, to supervise, 

 to applaud, and to reject. Such is the state into which fortification 

 has come in this country and in some others, since it has ceased to 

 command the sympathies and co-operation of the general world of 

 science. 



Neither in classic times nor on the revival of learning was there 

 such restriction, and we therefore find among the professors of 

 fortification many most eminent men of science. To say nothing 

 of Archimedes and his ancient prototypes, Albert Durer, Michael 

 Angelo, and San Micheli are examples of military engineering 

 practised by men whose ordinary pursuits were of a far milder 

 character. Fortification is at present so little of an art, and still 

 less of a mystery, so far as any practical and useful application is 

 concerned, that its technical acquirement does not require any 

 extraordinary study or labour. There is, therefore, no real incon- 

 gruity in a work on fortification by an architect; it is selon les 

 regies, and will remind Professor Hosking of military architecture, 

 — and we welcome Mr. Fergusson's essay because it is likely to do 

 much good, directly and indirectly. 



It is a strange beginning for an essay on any art, to assert that 

 it is in a most unsatisfactory and imperfect state; and yet the 

 writer has very good authority in his behalf, and it besj)eaks some 

 boldness that he should apply himself under such circumstances. 

 IMilitary critics have, over and over again, pointed out the defects 



of the bastion system, and book after book has been written with a 

 view to its amendment, without correcting the practical vice, be- 

 cause all exertion has been in a %vrong direction. So far from any 

 good being done, the efforts of reformers have mostly tended to 

 improve the flanking defense, thereby introducing greater real 

 weakness. The merest tyro is so impressed by the state of affairs, 

 that he is naturally tempted to design some new outwork, or to 

 improve those of the present system. 



Those who have studied fortification for naval purposes must be 

 forcibly struck with the antithesis and opposition of principles 

 displayed in military and naval fortification. The military man 

 does his best to get a perfect flanking defense — the naval man goes 

 straightforward to work, and throws his whole strength into a 

 direct fire. It wiU be found, too, that where a ship comes, under 

 fair circumstances, in contact with a land battery, as our naval 

 annals fully show, — the ship, by bringing greater weight of metal, 

 comes oiF the conqueror. The best examples of fortification, 

 moreover, are those most in accordance with nautical principles. 



Thus the great amount of ability possessed by the military en- 

 gineers of Europe is neutralised, because it is exercised in a wrong 

 direction, and because there are wanting the sympathies of the allied 

 professions. So little is known about fortification, that it is looked 

 on as a mystery, and there are perhaps few civil engineers in this 

 country who know anything of it, or have any desire to know. It 

 is, nevertheless, very much to be wished that it formed part of 

 professional studies, because an acquaintance with it would be 

 calculated to produce very gratifying results. In the colonies, the 

 civil engineer is often the only practitioner; and it is of great 

 importance he should have sufficient knowledge, in case of a sudden 

 emergency, to provide the requisite military works of defense. 

 In this country, too, the arrangements of our harbour works are 

 often, in a military point of view, prejudicial, because the engineer 

 has no regard to military purposes; whereas some attention in this 

 respect might mitigate the defenceless state of our coasts, and 

 provide for their defense. 



So far as military engineers are concerned, they would in every 

 way gain hy fortification being taught in the engineering colleges. 

 There would be a greater body of practitioners, and therefore bet- 

 ter and cheaper books and periodicals; there would be a greater 

 association of intellect, and therefore an enhanced reputation to 

 the professors of the art. Against this good there is no counter- 

 vailing disadv<antage to be set, because althougit civil engineers 

 would sometimes be employed on military works, yet more military 

 works would be executed, and there would be a greater reliance on 

 the special practitioner One advantage, which cannot be over- 

 rated, is that there would be a greater application in military art 

 of the boundless resources of mechanical science, for which this 

 country is so distinguished. 



As there is no need for mystery in fortification, and as the art 

 can be readily comprehended, none of our readers need feel any 

 diffidence in taking up Mr. Fergusson's book; and they will be the 

 more gratified, as it is a continuous appeal to their common-sense, 

 and the exercise of their judgment. Tliey have not to take any- 

 thing for granted, — nothing is laid down ex cathedra; and they 

 proceed to a perfectly independent and impartial investigation, 

 carried on by themselves as much as by the author. 



Mr. Fergusson's great canon we take to be the weighing each 

 scheme by the money-wortJi, which constitutes a practical test, ad- 

 missible anywhere, but peculiarly acceptable in this commercial 

 country. He thus gets a standard on a subject which hitherto has 

 been without one of a satisfactory cliaracter, and he secures tlie 

 sympathy and attention of all those who are interested in the na- 

 tional expenditure and defense. 



t)ur writer takes the opportunity of adverting to the anomaly, 

 which is received iiulisputedly by so many, that since the invention 

 of gunpowder the art of attack is superior to the art of defense, 

 though, as he afterwards sliows, there is no reason either in theory 

 or practice for any such notion. The besiegers and the besieged 

 have the command of the like resources; and it is the quantity of 

 these at tlie disposal of each, which must casteris paribus govern the 

 result. In simple terms, it is a fight of artillery, and, as in line 

 battles, the relative projiortion of this arm must exercise the 

 greatest influence on the e^'ent. 



Why, under such circumstances, fortification has become so in- 

 efl'ective that its works were virtually set aside by Napoleon in his 

 campaigns, it does not seem very easy to explain, — and yet in real- 

 ity it has arisen from increasing the flanking defenses, which are 

 only wanted as a reserve; exhausting the resources on these works; 

 neglecting tlie superiority of direct fire, and making no adequate 

 provision against vertical fire. While the use of shells has been 

 increasing, the construction of casemates and protected works has 



30* 



