8 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



[January, 



it being evident tliat he was not influenced by any high sense of deli- 

 cacy, otherwise it would have deterred him altogether from entering 

 into 1 competiton whose terms— made binding upon others lie has 

 evaded. What renders matters worse, and appearances all the more 

 suspicious, is that Mr. Derrick is an Oxford man. This has at least 

 an awkward look ; for although we are (old (hat no man is a prophet 

 in his own coimtry, many a one is a great man in his own parisli who 

 would not be thought much of out of i(, parish pride and parish 

 favour being not without their influence. 



So far then as Mr. Derrick is concerned, he must rest under a most 

 humiliating imputation unless he can now come forward and boldly 

 contradict what has been asserted with respect to his sending in his 

 designs a full fortnight after the expiry of the time attbrded others. 

 Nor is it he alone who must put up with the discredit resulting frnni 

 such transactions, since it must be shared by those who sanctioned it, 

 and who are thereby guilty of a gross breach of faith, — of shuffling and 

 double-dealing. And if they have so far notoriously criminated them- 

 selves, what pledge have we that they were strictly impartial in all 

 the rest of the business, and dealt out even-handed justice without 

 favour to any one? It is mere cant to talk upon such occasions of the 

 honour and respectability of parties whose very honesty is called in 

 question. Their position in society may give them what is called 

 "respectability," but their honour stands impugned dt facto ; and 

 however it may regulate their general conduct, that is no excuse for 

 disregarding it in particular cases. It is but sorry consolation for 

 being duped, to know that you have been duped by men of fair cha- 

 racters — people who stand well with the world and its opinions. 

 There ought not to be room for even any suspicion of foul play and 

 underhand dealing. 



A very strange disclosure would, I fancy, take place could we some- 

 times compare designs that have been rejected at competitions, wilh 

 the building executed from the selected one. The taste, if not the 

 honour of those who made the choice, would frequently be sadly 

 reproached, and stand convicted of gross error. Either such would 

 be the case, or in many competitions there could have been no sort of 

 talent and taste whateyer, if we may judge from the thing on which 

 "the pippin of [ireference" had been bestowed, — of course, as being 

 the very best. 



Competitions being for the most part managed so very unsatisfac- 

 torily, the usual advice given by their friends to architects is; " Have 

 nothing at all to do with competion." Yet that dift'ers little from 

 saying : " renounce every opportunity, every chance that presents 

 itself to you in such shape." The counsel is fitted only for those who 

 have no occasion to go in quest of opportunities. 



As to the Institute. — instead of asking what it can do, the most pro- 

 per question would be- — " what has it tried to do towards remedying any 

 of the abuses complained of, in competition ?" Its other labours for 

 the weal of the profession, and the interests of the art, do not appear 

 to be so onerous and so extensive as to prevent its troubling itself 

 about such " petty matters." It might at least express a desire to 

 receive conununications and evidence upon the subject, and to take 

 into careful consideration whatever could be suggested as a likely 

 mode of reforming the present system of competition. Will the 

 Institute ever do this? — Yes: but when! — on the iWuly -itcoiul of 

 January. 



James. 



THE CAMBRIDGE CAMDEN SOCIETY. 



Our readers may have heard of "straining at a gnat and shallowing 

 a camel." We cannot help thinking the following letter a livelv illus- 

 tration of this curious phenomenon: — 



To the Editor of the Camlridge Chronicle. 



Trinily College, Dec. 13, 1844. 



Sir — It having lately become a common practice, and one not unlikely to 

 be imUattil, for anonymous publications to issue trom the press, purporting 

 to be written by •' A Member (or memberB) of the Cambridge Cjinden So- 

 ciety," I (eel it to be due to tlie society and myself, willi your permission, to 

 remind the readers of any works so |<ublished, that these are in no way to be 

 considered as having the approval or sanction of the society, or of any of its 

 members. 



I might extend this remnrk to publications, not anonymous, issued by 

 writers known to Ije oHieially or otherwise connected with the society ; but 

 my preseait communication has more immediate reference to a new publica- 

 tion, which has just met my eye, and of which I should be sorry (o leave any 

 but as to my sentimsnts of disap^u'otjitia i. 



I address you in my personal character, having no opporlunity of consult- 

 ing the commiKee, which has broken up for (he vacation. 

 I remain. Sir, your obedient servan(, 



Thomas Thorp. 



We must confess ourselves in the highest degree puzzled to con- 

 ceive any thing that may issue from the press anonymously or not, as 

 being likely to embarrass the deglutition of the Venerable gentleman 

 who rejoices in the office of President of the Cambridge Camden So- 

 ciety. If the work to which reference is made in this letter, be the 

 production to which a review appears in another part of the Journal, 

 we are at a loss to discover any thing in its pages which has not 

 already been virtually set forth again and again in the "Ecclesiologist" 

 and other publications, the full responsibility of which the Reverend 

 Archdeacon will hardly pretend to disclaim. More than this, we fear 

 lest the Venerable President should lie open to no light charge of in- 

 gratitude in dealing this unkind cut to the " writers known to be offi- 

 cially or otherwise connected with the Society," who have certainly 

 during the last three years stuck at nothing, true or false, clean or 

 dirty, to promote the objects of (he Society, and therefore, we might 

 be justified in presuming, objects not disapproved by its President. 

 Taking it for granted, however, that the pupils of the Reverend 

 Archdeacon have stretched a point beyond the limits to which 

 he must be supposed to have confined them in their recognized pub- 

 lications, he ought to recollect that during the period which has 

 elapsed since he organized them into a Society, their beards have 

 grown — from hobbledehoys they have become men, in years, if not in 

 discretion — and they must have profited little by the sort of encour- 

 agement given them by their tutor, if they do not conceit themselves 

 to be as good men as himself. Moieover, what result (we ask) could 

 he expect from a Society founded on false pretences? Its very name 

 is a false pretence. We can vouch that numerous communications 

 have been opened with the Society, especially by clergymen in dis- 

 tant parts of the country, under the mistake that they were cor- 

 responding with a long established and honourable association — the 

 Camden Society — very dill'erent from the official staft' who take upon 

 themselves to exercise the functions of the other Camden Society at 

 Cambridge ; and we presume the success of this ingenious manoeuvre 

 is the success boasted of in the preface to the collected volume of the 

 "Ecclesiologist." False pieten:es have been the staple commodity 

 of the Society. Its ostensible business has been the improvement 

 of ecclesiastical architecture — its real and notorious object to 

 promote the views of one of the hostile divisions of the church. 

 Influenced by parties who are concealed behind the show box, and 

 pull the strings by which managing committee are made to dance, 

 their whole powers have been thus \inreini(tingly directed almost from 

 the foundation of the Society to the present time. On this part of 

 the subject we shall not dilate. We are of no party, and lament that 

 any question connected with the church should be disgraced by such 

 advocacy. 



There is yet another pretence which we know to have been professed 

 by the Venerable President as a motive for promoting the original es- 

 tablishment of the Society — viz., that it would aftbrd a laudable occupa- 

 tion for the leisure of the young gentlemen of the University, and it is 

 but justice to the Archdeacon to admit the excellence of this motive, and 

 the degree of success which lias attended it. Since the establishment of 

 the Society we have not again heard of any posting of the names of Fel- 

 lows for non-attendance at Chapel, or of discussions out their moral quali- 

 fications for the office of Proctor, — and the pages of the Eccles/olognt 

 give abundant evidence that it has acted as an outlet to a spirit wdiich 

 could not have failed to vent itself, probably in the shape of sedition 

 and nastiness, in periodicals of another class. On the other hand, (for 

 every question has two sides,) it may be doubted whether it is per- 

 fectly just to check the torrent of insolence and scurrility merely to 

 turn it in another direction, and whether it is quite fair toward the 

 young men themselves, to encourage them in a course which they may 

 be tempted to follow at a more responsible period of their lives, and 

 which may entail upon them the punishment, legal or illegal, which 

 is apt to overtake a taste for writing and editing " Eccltaiologists." 



We beg to be understood, that these remarks are meant to apply 

 only to that class of the members by whom the Cambiidge Camden 

 Society is worked at head quarters. The general list of the Society 

 includes the names of many who must be totally ignorant of its real 

 proceedings, and it is notorious that many of those whose high cliarac- 

 ters ;uul reputation were mainly influential in enabling the President 

 to found the Association, have long since quitted it in disgust; a fact 

 for which the reader may search in vain among the reports pretending 

 to detail the transactions of (he Committee at Cambridge, in which 

 nevertheless all accessions are carefully recorded. We beg also to be 

 understood that whatever we may liavejelt bound to say, we entertain 

 the most profound respect for the President. Whether he respects 



