1 845. J 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL 



241 



ROYAL EXCHANGE: WINDOWS OF PORTICO. 

 Were it not that the time for publications of the class is now, ap- 

 parei tly, quite pono bv, we miglit perhaps expi'ct to see an architco 

 tural moiicgraph on the Royal Exchange, it being a structure that 

 would require at U-ast two dozen phites to ilhislrate it at all satisfac- 

 torily. Hut either there is so little demand for such works in this 

 country that they would be attended with a certain and positive loss, 

 or our architects— even those who have been employed upon monu- 

 mental edifices— shrink from the imputation of vanity which they 

 miglit incur, were they to follow the example of some of their con- 

 tinental brethren who have published plans and other drawings of 

 their princi().il buildings— i7/HS/ra//o«s cf what they now are, and me- 

 morials hereafter of what they (nee were, when time or accident 

 shall have destroyed the fabrics themselves. We do not, indeed, re- 

 commend publication to t^ir Robert Smirke, because any collection of 

 his designs would only render more glariigly obvious than ever the 

 utter barrenness of liis imagination, and the poverty and paucity of his 

 ideas. Happily there are otiiers who would extend their own fame, 

 and also promote the cause of art and good taste, by exhibiting some 

 of their productions to the world in a shape that would render them 

 accessible as studies to every one — abroad as well as at home ; studies 

 that really answer to their name, because they can be referred to 

 wheneverWe want, — examined as minutely as we please; and because 

 thev supply accurate information as to a variety of particulars not to 

 be learnt by vipwing or going over the buildings them«plves. There 

 are beauties of plan — skilful combinations either for ell'ect or for sur- 

 mounting inconveniences, which cannot be fully understood and ap- 

 preciated by autopsy, but require to be delibeiately investigated and 

 carefully dwelt upon. No doubt strikingellectsmake themselves felt, or 

 else they would not be such ; yet though the elVect reveals itself to the 

 spectator, the cau^e of it may be very imperfectly understood — per- 

 haps altogether mistaken, and that even by those who are tolera- 

 bly conversant with architecture, — not to say by architects themselves. 

 It is not every one among the latter who can detect at sight those 

 merits which are not to be judged of without more than a general and 

 cursory iusfieclion. It is not only "the Reviewer-critics of the day" 

 who, as G«ilt assures us, confine their observation almost exclusively to 

 to (he fayades of buildings, " well knovping how quickly their igno- 

 rance would be discovered the moment they should pass tiie threshold, 

 and discourse on the economy and distribution of a building. The 

 fact is, the number is very limited of those who can comprehend the 

 plan of a building, or who on walking over it, can so arrange in their 

 mind tlie distribution of the several portions as to have tlie smallest 

 notion whether it has been skilfully composed." This last remark is 

 true enough; but the taunt thrown out against reviewers, critics, and 

 writers is somewhat illiberal, for if not altogether unmerited, profes- 

 sional persons also must at any r.ite come in for some share of it ; for 

 we do not find them ever lake any pains to point out for our particular 

 notice, and explain for our instruction, those peculiarities and beauties 

 of plan and section which deserve to be studied, for the sake of the 

 originality and happiness of the ideas they contain, and the valuable 

 lessons to be derived from them. On the contrary, such collections 

 as the Vitruvius Britannicus contain no letterpress at all, although 

 some commentary, or if not commentary, some little matter-of-fact 

 ■account of the respective buildings would by no means have been 

 superfluous. To us, this sort of omission is quite as strange, as in 

 Gwili's own opinion "it is singular in these days of art-reviewing, 

 that fur the last twenty years r/Ot a single paper of any ralue has ap- 

 peared ill any of the periodicals, in which the writer has ventured on 

 that part of the subject" — namely, distribution of plan. Now if Mr. 

 Gwilt can point out to us any thing of " value," and containing fresh 

 and original remarl , on the same subject, which has proceeded from 

 the pen of a professional man, we shall feel ourselves his debtor, and 

 should lose no time in becoming acquainted v\ith such a rara avis. 

 That something lias been written on the subject by others he does not 

 deny ; but he gives us to understand that they have shown themselves 

 utterly incompetent, and have produced nothing of "value," — not a 

 single paper deserving to be excepted from his general condemnation. 

 Whatever ability or the contrary has been shown in such remarks, the 

 readers of this Journal hardly require to be told that observations 

 bearing upon plan and arrangement have been brought forward in it 

 from lime to time. The papers entitled " Episodes of Plan," showed 

 some tolerable intelligence of the subject, and also conla.ned some 

 fiesh and novel ideas; — at least so we thought at the time, and so 

 many others tliuuglit loo; but we now stand corrected, and are now 

 bound to bow to the superior judgment of a great writer — of one v»ho 

 has written an entire Encyclopaedia, therefore in comparison with 

 whom we are at the best but puny literary dwarfs. This is not the 

 first time that Gwilt has got a rub or two in this Journal, and some 



may be of opinion that he is dragged into notice oftener than there is 

 occasion for doing ; yet there surely can be nothing strange in advert- 

 ing to the opiidons formally given in what pretends to be a standard 

 work, and an authority ; and if in such a vpork Mr. Gwilt chose to go 

 out of liis way, and take every opportunity of sneering at those who 

 write in reviews and journals, neither he nor any one else can be sur- 

 prized if some of them occasionally go a little out of their direct way 

 too, in order to return his complimrnts with what interest they may. 



We now must proceed with our remarks on the subject of those 

 two windows in the Royal Exchange whose design is here represented. 



We feel much satisfaction at being able to give tliis example in addi- 

 tion to these of other windows in the same building, both because it 

 is an original and well adjusted composition in itself, and because it 

 shows skilful contrivance in surmounting a great difficulty, and impart- 

 ing nobleness of character to features that threatened to prove sad 

 eye-sores. And if not always absolutely eye-sores, windows within a 

 portico are more or less a drawback on that superior architectural 

 character which is affected by that part of a structure and which _ it 

 ought to maintain. In the first place, they are quite at variance with 

 the classical costume assumed by such application of the antique tem- 

 ple frontispiece, since they disturb consistency by showing a modern 

 facade immediately behind it. In the next place, besides being at- 

 tended with too much of an ordinary and every-day look, a number of 

 such apertures quite destroy that breadth and repose of background 

 so essential to the due effect of columniation ; nor is it quite free from 

 objection that windows so situated cause the columns placed in ad- 

 vance of that part of the front to appear obstructions,— at least to be 

 so considered by many who complain that porticos serve only to darken 

 the rooms behind them, and intercept the view from their windows. 

 In fact, a poitico ought not to be atti^mpted on that side of a building 

 where a number of windows are indispensable, since even though there 

 may be none within the portico itself, they interfere with general unity 

 of composition by causing the other parts to appear quite distinct 

 in character from the portico, as is the case with the front of the Post 

 Office, where two opposite modes of treatment are brought together 

 in violent contrast, viz., columniation for I he centre and fenestration on 

 each side of it. In the West fa9ade of the Exchange, there was, for- 



32 



