1S41.] 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL 



187 



arrangement, and not, it will be perceived, under the resolutions which 

 embraced only the plans as adopted. I afterwards attended a meeting 

 called for the express purpose of inspecting them, where they were 

 inspected, explained, and Kaiictwned, so that there was here a formal 

 assent given to them, and I was allowed to go for tenders upon them. 

 For whose benefit was all this done ? For my own it could not be ; 

 my commission would not have been increased, whilst it was likely 

 my labour would be. 



In November, 1833, four tenders were sent in. I wonder there were 

 so many, considering the committee insisted, against my protest, and 

 compelled me to advertize, that they "did not pledge themselves to 

 accept the lowest tender," and that one of the members officiously in- 

 formed several of the builders applying to inspect the working draw- 

 ings, that "they need not tender unless they were prepared to build 

 the church for £4,000," or to that effect. All the tenders were in 

 excess, a probability which the very arrangement I made necessarily 

 contemplated ; and what then was the course this honourable com- 

 mittee adopted? Why this (one more notable for its brevity than its 

 equity) ; the chairman called me before them, and read me a paper 

 stating that the tenders were in excess, and that my plans were de- 

 clined pursuant to the resolutions. Surprised at this laconic address 

 and summarv dismissal, after nearly two years' labour, with more than 

 £200 out of pocket, and in the teeth of a special understanding, I 

 appealed to the agreement, and offered to perform my undertaking; 

 but the only answer vouchsafed me was, "we decline your plans," and 

 this although I afterwards proferred to enter into a bond to find an 

 unexceptionable builder to build the church for the £4,500. Thus I 

 vpas shamefully shuffled off, and not even afforded the opportunity of 

 making that adjustment between my plans and the tenders, for which 

 I had expressly stipulated (although imfortunately not in wnlhig). 

 Had not this arrangement been previously sanctioned, I should not, of 

 course, have ventured the plans for competition, except strictly in 

 accordance with the resolutions. 



This is ray case, and although the law has enabled my opponents to 

 triumph over me, yet I must contend that equity and justice are still 

 on my side. How far the statements made in the article which has 

 been chiefly instrumental in calling forth this, are consistent with truth, 

 1 must leave your readers to decide. 1 will but remark that my state- 

 ment flatly contradicts almost every assertion advanced ; 1st. that by 

 which I am made to have professed myself "perfectly clear," that my 

 design could be executed for £1,000 or even £4,500, sufficiently dis- 

 proved by my first letter to the committee. 2ndly, the statements as 

 to the proposed amount of expenditure, which was £4,500 instead of 

 £4,000. 3rdly, the gratuitous assertion that the committee were 

 "troubled vtith a prejudice," &c., when the fact was, that the "con- 

 ditions" were imposed subsequently to the competition, and after my 

 design had been preferred and accepted, notwithstanding the contents 

 of the letter accompanying the drawings, by which I so fully explained 

 how the matter stood. 4thly, as to the time I kept the action hanging 

 over the heads of the committee, it was not " nearly four years," but 

 only about two, and this through unavoidable circumstances. I will not 

 swell a long letter with the detail of ray offers to meet the committee, 

 and enter into explanations of any possible misunderstanding, or to 

 refer the matter to some disinterested party for arrangement, made 

 first by myself and then through my attorneys, nor dwell upon the 

 inference to be drawn of the committee's fearing to meet the truth, 

 by their pertinacious refusal either to see or liear rae, or listen in the 

 slightest degree to any amicable proposition. It was thus, with the 

 greatest reluctance and compelled by obstinate injustice, that I at last 

 engaged in litigation ; I must otherwise have quietly sat down under 

 a gross injury, which neither suited my interest nor comported with 

 my duty. Besides, in going to trial, I had a further object in view 

 beyond gaining a verdict, and that was to bring as much of the merits 

 of the case before the public as I could, in order that even had the 

 jury found against me, the true cause of my dismissal might be clearly 

 known, and the prejudice which that fact has produced be removed. 

 But in this, also, I have been foiled by the judge's intention, who did 

 not look beyond the resolutions, although the main points of all I have 

 here stated were actually given in evidence ; his lordship, as well as 

 the defendant's counsel, nevertheless, doing rae the justice in stating 

 that my character was in no way impeached, even in their view of 

 the case. My counsel's cross-examination of the defendant's wit- 

 nesses, and right to comment on the whole case, and extricate it from 

 the mystifications of my opponents, was thus stopt, the jury deprived 

 of the power of giving t/ittr verdict, and my case prevented from 

 having a trial. The only course left me was, therefore, to elect to be 

 non-suited, reserving to myself the power of enforcing my right in 

 such manner as may be most expedient. 



Normicti, May 21. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, 



John Brown. 



Letter A. 



To — Brown, Esq., .Vrcliitect, Norwich. 



St. John's Colleffe, Camt/ridge. 

 February i2nd, 1837. 



Sir— .\s vicar of the parish of St. Andrew the Great in this town, I am 

 requested to inform you that it is the wisli of the committee (appointed to 

 carry into effect the re-building of the parish clmrch) to adopt the method 

 of a limited competition in the choice of an architect, and that the persons 

 fixed upon are yourself, Mr. Rickman, Mr. Poynter, Mr. Sharpe (lately tra- 

 velling Bachelor in tlie University), and Mr. Walter of Cambridge. \Ve are 

 anxious to accomplish something as worthy as possible of the example of 

 former days, more especially as our church will stand in the middle of Cam- 

 bridge, opposite to Christ's College. The sum we have raised is £3,300, we 

 hope to realize £4,000 at least. I will candidly tell you that your new church 

 at Stamford has pleased many here, though the inside has been tliought not 

 equal to the outside. Would you give us your opinion as to tiie probable 

 expence of the hke church at Cambridge — the freightage of stone I have 

 heard put at £500 or £600. It is possible that something might be saved 

 in our case by retaining and refacing the first story of tlie present tower, and 

 the arches inside the church. But I shall he glad to supply you with any 

 further particulars when assured of your readiness to send in a jdan. 1 fear 

 we cannot begin this year. 



Your's, &c., 

 (Signed) " Geo. Langshaw." 



IMPROVEMENTS ON ECCENTRIC RODS. 



.Sir — ^I happened not to have seen any of your excellent numbers for 

 this year till a few days ago ; I see that there are several commu- 

 nications from Mr. Pearce, respecting an improved method of revers- 

 ing engines with one fixed eccentric, which he has invented. I do not 

 doubt that Mr. Pearce has the merit of making the discovery, but I 

 merely write to state that about 18 months ago, when engaged in a 

 large engineering establishment near Manchester, I made the same 

 discovery, and made a model in wood ndiich acted so as to give the 

 lead with perfect accuracy both ways, and on the same principle, viz., 

 by establishing a proper proportion between the length of the eccentric 

 rod and the length of the double arms of the valve rocking-shaft. I 

 am aware that engines have been reversed time out of mind, by means 

 of a double lever on the rocking-shaft for working the valve, particu- 

 larly coal-pit engines, and at one time Messrs. Sharp and Roberts 

 of Manchester made the reversing gear of their locomotives on a simi- 

 lar plan, but so far as I know, no one has hitherto given the lead cor- 

 rectly both ways, by making the eccentric traverse a certain deter- 

 minate angle in being shifted from one end of the lever to the ctlier, 

 and it is this which constitutes the merit of Mr. Pearce's invention. 



Portland Street, Glasgow, 

 30th April, 1841. 



I am, Sir, 



Your obedient servant, 



D.T. 



PAPER ON HARBOURS AND RIVERS. 



On the ineans of improving the Navigation of the River Lime tip to 

 the Port of Lancaster. 



By John Rooke, Esq.* 



Tlie nautical survey of the river Lune up to the port of Lancaster, 

 by Messrs. Stevenson, is illustrated by facts such as pure science re- 

 quires in the framing of correct plans. Their report, however, is so 

 brief, that scientific exactness could scarcely be expected, and indeed 

 was not needed. Deepening the channel, on certain lines delineated 

 on the plan of their survey, by the application of the dredging machine, 

 until a specified depth and viidth of water is obtained, appears to be 

 the main feature of tlieir report. 



But with some of their statements (and these concern the objects 

 for which the report is drawn up most intimately) I am at issue; and 

 in support of the objections here taken, all the exactness of details 

 embodied in the survey and plan would seem to be called for. It is 

 fortunate, therefore, that their proceedings have embraced so much 

 exactness of information in detail. From Glasson to Heaton the dimi- 

 nution of fall in the channel of the Lune is about two feet and three- 

 tenths per mile ; and from Heaton to Lancaster, one foot and seven- 

 tenths per mile. Messrs. Stevenson state in their report that " the 



' This paper originally appeared in the Lancaster Guardian. 



2 C 2 



