1846.1 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



313 



quostion more deserves study, and few are less attended to. The Cam - 

 bridge Camden Society very early called attention in its church-schemes 

 to the nature of masonry and joiuling, but with small results. The nature 

 of buildins slones, and the peculiar treatment of each, particularly as 

 regards mouldings, — In granite for example, where from tlie hardness of 

 the stone they are of necessity superficial, and in Kentish rag, where they 

 are broad and coarse because the stone will scarcely take an edge, — are 

 points for further investigation. At present, we propose only to make 

 some general remarks, chiefly on llie treatment of Kentish rag, whcih seem 

 called for because this stone is coming happily into more frequent use in 

 London. 



In the beginning of the present revival of Church Architecture, the 

 masonry, where brick was not used, was quite of the modern kind. 

 Squared stones, as large as could be easily procured, were laid very neatly 

 and closely, with as much regularity as was possible. This kind of ma- 

 sonry is by itself enough to spoil the effect of a Pointed building ; as will 

 he evident to any one comparing the new Pointed work at King's College, 

 Cambridge, with the masonry of the chapel on the opposite side of the 

 quadrangle. The same defect goes through all the modern Pointed work 

 in Cambridge. It is curious to notice how truly small stones seem to be 

 appropriate to the requisites of Pointed architecture. An arch is the 

 skilful adjustment of stones not long enough to go across, so as to span 

 over a space and support a weight. Hfuce a metallic development of 

 architecture would probably reject the arch, because a strong metal bar 

 may be of any length, and would be sufticienily strong for the top of 

 almost any aperture. Whence it seems to be a gross unreality to cut a 

 whole window-head, with arch and tracery, out of one block of stone large 

 enough to cover the whole window opening. Vet this mockery has been 

 resorted to in the New Houses of Parliament, — to mention a rather con- 

 spicuous instance. But without any reference to principles, few will 

 doubt that, for whatever reason, the small masonry of ancient work is far 

 more effective than the finest building on the modern plau with huge stones 

 laid in regular courses. Some have thought that this diflerence arises 

 from the fact that the smalluess of parts gives increased scale to the whole; 

 others, that from the regularity of courses in modern masonry there comes 

 a too great preponderance of the horizontal lines in the buildiug. But 

 this question we cannot now discuss. Suflice it to say, that it is now be- 

 coming generally acknowledged that there is a great ditfereuce between 

 Pointed and Classical masonry, and that the smaller size of the stones and 

 the irregularity in laying them are main characteristics of the former 

 style. But of the attempts to copy ancient masonry there are few which 

 are not great failures. It was easily seen that the primness of modern 

 quoining was not only taiue and dull but utterly unlike old work ; but it 

 was not found so easy to remedy the fault. Builders began to try irregu- 

 lar quoining, and we soon saw prodigies of irregularity. On one side of 

 the angle there would be three stones of different leiigtlis running into the 

 wall ; then two running into it on tlie other side ; then perhaps one, and 

 again three, on no plan or principle whatever. The quoins became dis- 

 tressingly jagged; and after being pained one wonders why it need be so 

 jagged. A more close observation of ancient work would enable us to 

 detect some principle of order in its seemiug irregularity. We believe that 

 the very natural and reasonable alternation of long and short stones,— 

 which is seen in its primitive simplicity in Anglo-Sasou masonry, of which 

 indeed it is considered a great characteristic, — was always retained, though 

 not in so harsh and cramped a form. The mason took long and short 

 stones alternately, but was not careful to make them all tail into the 

 wall of the same length, nor even to keep them of the same thickness. 



Perhaps this is one great reason why brick quoins to a random wall are 

 so particularly ugly, as brick can scarcely be used for quoins unless witli 

 the strictest uniformity. 



So much for quoins. With respect to walling, the days are happily fast 

 going when people were not satisfied without at least a scored stucco sub- 

 stitute for large ashlar. Architects are beginning to venture upon using 

 local stones, rag and rubble. This is a very great change for the better in 

 all respects. ; and it is proportionately a matter of regret that these mate- 

 rials should not be rightly treated. Kor example, that useful stone, Kent- 

 ish rag, has been already several times used in London; as at St. Michael's 

 Chester-square, St. John, Charlotte street, and Christ Church, Broadway. 

 No one can doubt that this is a great gain over brick or stucco : this rag- 

 stone being both very durable aud of a good colour. It would also be an 

 economical material if used as the ancient architects used it ; but in these 

 churches it is used iu regular square blocks, producing no better effect 

 than that of bricks of a new colour, and being very costly to boot. For no 

 stone is less adapted for squaring than this, owing to its hardness and its 

 decided grain. Any one who would visit the quarries near Maidstone and 

 watch the process of squaring would be astonished at the wasie. The 

 small pile of squared material contrasts most strikingly with the huge heap 

 of refuse stone, which, being rejected as unfit for building, is used merely 

 for road-mending, for which purpose it is transported to great distances. 

 And besides this waste, a good deal of labour has often been spent upon 

 refuse stones, which, when nearly squared, have been shatte ed by some 

 unlucky cross-grained blow. But to what purpose is this expensive 

 squaring in a stone which seems only adapted for cleavage ? In effect, a 

 random wall, properly treated, is far better than one of squared bloclis. 

 AH Saints, Maidstone, is built, we are aware, of squared rag; but it is 

 squared in thinner layers than is now usual. St. Peter aud St. Paul, 

 Lmgfield, is an example of the extremely bad appearance of very large 



and unwieldy masonry.* As for the expensiveness of this squaring pro- 

 cess, the reader may judge when lie is fold that the s'one may be drawu 

 from the quarries in a natural way f'.ir half-a-crown a ton ; the squared 

 stone costs eight shillings and siN pence a ton. It really becomes a duty 

 of church-builders to lake care that their architects do not waste so much 

 money in a process which is at best so unsuccessful and unsatisfHCtury. 



There have been, however, several aftempfs, particularly in the neigh- 

 bourhood of Maidstone, to use Kentish rag properly, that is, as irregular 

 (or random) walling. But here again we have to find the same ^ult as 

 with most modern attempts at irregular quoining. The irregularity is 

 overstrained. There is not one stone at rest; not ime seems to have .a lied. 

 They lie at all angles : some even stand on their points, merely propped by 

 the contiguous stones. The masonry looks more like an intricate puzzle 

 than anything else. Instead of this, in ancient random walling we may 

 trace this principle, — always to lay every stone iu its best bed, lifting up 

 any part of it which may want thickening by means of thinner pieces. 

 Regular courses are not studiously atlempted ; but any stone that comes to 

 hand is laid in, provided it has a good plain bed. 



These brief remarks must suffice, upon ihe use of Kentisli rag more 

 partitiularly, in quoining and walling. Many of them also apply however 

 to other stones ; for example, to the lieautifiil Bramley-Fall stone of York- 

 shire, which is squared iu the new church of St. Saviour, Leeds, for the 

 walling as well as for the dressings. 



As a general rule then we would give this advice to church-bnilders ; — 

 use the material of which the neighbouring churches are mostly built, aud 

 in the way in which they are built. If we study carefully the method of 

 masonry employed formerly, we shall avoid both needless expense and 

 eccentricity. For example, if flint is the material most easily procured, 

 let us use flint; but only as it was used iu old churches. We will not uow 

 enter on the nature of fliut masonry, but would contrast only the absurd 

 modern plan of using Idaclc luorlar, from a fear of the wide joints iu while, 

 with the old way of " garrettiiig" flint-work, that is, of inserting small 

 flint-shivers in the mortar of the joints. I!ut we purposely keep ourselves 

 more particularly to the use of rag-stone ; and upun this we may, in con- 

 clusion, remark that, without attempting to solve Ihe general question 

 started at the begiuning of this paper, as to Ihe su|iposed unreality of using 

 small stones for masonry when we can get large ones, we may surely lay 

 down that it is wrong and absurd to spend much money in squaring 

 stones, the nature of which does uot easily jield to the process, and which 

 have lasted so well and with such good effect as used in random work by 

 ancient builders. What we want tor cliurch-work is that the material 

 should he good and substantial, and the best that we can afford. We do 

 not object even to brick iu a bad stone district, and wfiere Ihe funds are 

 small. Only let the brick be honestly and ino'lligenlly used On the 

 other hand we see uo objection to importing Caen stone for rich and stalely 

 churches in any district; though perhaps we shall rather rejoice than la- 

 meut that the architects of Carlisle and Chester used the perishing red 

 sandstone of their neighbourhood. For nothing can be more tilting than 

 that we should press into the service of Cod whatever suitable materials 

 His wonderful Creation may offer us. The very difference of material is 

 a sign of the unity of the purpose to which they are consecrated, namely. 

 His honour in His sanctuary. We would use flint, granite. sandstone, and 

 ragstone, each in its proper district, in the spirit of the hymn, ** Beuedicat 

 terra Dominum: Benedicite montes et codes Domino." 



* All Saints, Maidstone, is built altogetlier iu u very costly style, and bas no pretensiou 

 to random walling; the quoins and jambs are all iu the same squared ra^. The neiv 

 churches we aie criticising have their dressings in Caen slone, and the squared rap is 

 used as if for random work. This is a great .ibsurdity. One ought always to quoin With 

 the strongest stone: if, therefore, one can afford to square so sliong a stone as rag for 

 the walling, it ought to be also used lor the quoins. To use a soft stone like Caen 

 for quoins to walling of a strong rag-stone is preposterous. 



BRITISH ASSOCIATION. 



Session IGM, held at Southampton, Septemier, 1846. 

 Address of the President. 



Sir R. MURCFtlSON, after complimenting the late President for his distinguished 

 abilities and efficient services, addressed the association as follows :— 



Ladies and Geullemen,— After 1,') years of mi|;ratiQn to various cities and towns in the 

 United Kingdom, you are for the hrst time assembled in the South-Eastern districts of 

 £lngland, at the solicitation of the authorities and inbabitants of Southampton. Easdy 

 accessible on all sides to the cultivators of science, tills beautiful and flourishing sea-purt 

 is situated in a distiict so richly adorned by nature, so full of objects for scieulinc con- 

 templation, that, supported as we are by new friends in England, dnd by old friends from 

 the farthest regions of Europe, we shall icdeed be wauling to ourselves, if our proceed- 

 ings on this occasion should not sustain the high character which the British Association 

 lias hitherto maintained. 



For my own part, though deeply conscious of my inferiority to my eminent predecessor 

 in the higher branches ot science, I still venture to hope that the devotion I bare mani- 

 fested to this Association from its origin to the present day, may be viewed by you as a 

 guarantee for the zealous execution of my duties. Permit me then, gentlemen, to offer 

 you my warmest acknowledgments for having placed me in this honourable position: and 

 to assure you, that I value the approbation which it implies as the highest honour which 

 could have been bestowed on me — an honour the more esteemed from its being conferred 

 in a county endeared to me by family connexions, and in which I rejoice to have made ray 

 lirst essay as a geologist. 



The origin, progress and objects of this our " Parliament of Sciet\ce'' have been so 

 thoroughly explained on former occasions by your successive Presidents, particularly in 

 reference to that portion ot our hotly vi-bich cnltivales the mathematical, chemical aiul 

 inechanicai sciences, that after brietly alluding to some of the chief results of bv-gone 



