1841.J 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECTS JOURNAL. 



223 



yon have made yourself, and Professor Brown volt must now continue 

 to be in spite of yourself. You cannot metamorphose back again into 

 plain Dick Brown. I pity you, I compassionate you, I condole with 

 you — yet infinitely more do I pity and comparssionate those unfortu- 

 nate devils who shall imbibe their architectural taste from the designs 

 of Professor Brown ! 



ARCHITECTURAL ROOJI, ROYAL ACADEMY^ 

 CConcludcd Ji-om jmr/e 18 T.J 



H.iViNG matie a month's pause, we will avail oucselves of it, before 

 we resume our own comments, to express our astonishment at an 

 opinion we have in the inteival met with, in regard to the architectural 

 portion of the Exhibition. Either we, or the writer in the Mirror, is 

 egregiously mistaken, for he tells his readers that the designs for new 

 churches and other public buildings are "very numer^ous and in good 

 taste;" whereas we think that tliere are rather fewer of the kind 

 than usual, and those for the most part of very mediocre quality. In 

 fact, it is only by referring to the catalogue and our own notes, that 

 we can recollect above one or two, so little is there at all striking in 

 them — except, indeed, it be by making an unfavourable impression. 

 Such, certainly, is the case with respect to one, which is singled out 

 by the writer in the JliiTor, viz. lOJit, "The Estate building at Hack- 

 ney for J. B. Nichols, Esq." by J. A. Taylor, which consists only of a 

 crowd of ugly houses detached from each other, but all dittos, instead 

 of being varied as to design, — no doubt a laudable idea enough, be- 

 cause it saves the architect a great deal of trouble, without, perhaps, 

 at all diminishing his per centage. Such architecture may do very 

 well for the latitude of Hackney, but it is not fit to be paraded upon 

 the walls of a Rcyal Academy. Or if such things must be exhibited, 

 they must also take their chance of being somewhat cavalierly treated, 

 since it is not every one who is so com])laisant as the critic in the 

 jlirror — a mirror, by the bye, which flatters most confoundedly. 



Some may think that the MiiTor's opinions are scarcely worth 

 noticing at all, since^ instead of being put into positive and tangible 

 shape, its criticism amounts to little more than quoting from the cata- 

 logue the titles of such designs as it would recommend, and have us 

 understand to be meritorious, without our being so unreasonable as to 

 ask for reasons. The Art-Union — from which something better might 

 be expected — deals in nearly the same sort of criticism, being ex- 

 ceedingly laconic and oracular, or, we might say, that one had need 

 consult an oracle in order to understand upon what grounds it mentions 

 for approbation some of the things it does — for instance, "No. 10 i!?. 

 Design for an Opera House, by J. C. Tinckler." We confess that that 

 subject struck ourselves, but certainly not with admiration, the taste dis- 

 played in it, seeming to us in some respects absolutely barbarous, and 

 what was not positively barbarous, to be no more than barely endu- 

 rable. Far more readily do we agree with the Art-Union when it 

 says, "the churches now being erected through the country, such as 

 that at Nuneaton by Jlr. T. L. Walker, seem, thanks to the Church 

 Commissioners, to be designed by the dozen, with no better recom- 

 mendation than cheapness, and no other better point about them than 

 the certainty that they cannot last many years." As to the quality of 

 the design thus referred to, we ourselves cannot pretend to offer an 

 opinion, because that and about half a dozen others of the earlier 

 -.uimbers in the architectural section of the catalogue, are put out of 

 sight, perhaps very deservedly so, for there certainly is nothing at all 

 prepossessing in what can now be distinguished of them — nothing to 

 make us particularly anxious to become more intimately acquainted 

 with them. That a Royal Academy, not bearing the title, of an Hi- 

 bernian one, should persist, year after year, and in spite of repeated 

 remonstrances, in adhering to the blundering practice of exhibiting 

 drawings by hanging them where so many frames and blank paper 

 would cover the walls — if covered they must be — quite as well, is 

 nothing short of marvellous. If no remedy can be devised, it would 

 at all events be but becoming and proper that the highest and tip top 

 places should be assigned to the works of the Professor and other 

 Academician architects ; let them be exalted, and there is no doubt 

 that they would instantly perceive and correct what they now cannot 

 discern, viz. the gross absurdity of admitting more drawings than can 

 be properly seen when hung up. We certainly meet with a good 

 many whose absence would have been no loss to the exhibition ; and 

 the very first upon the list, viz. No. 9o6, " View of Hyde Park Gar- 

 dens, Paddington," is among them, it being a subject we are sorry to 

 see either in reality or representation — a heavy mass of bloated insig- 

 nificance. No. 9S0, "Lonsdale Square, Islington," R. C. Carpenter, 

 is another "flare-u'i" concern of !he same kind. The houses that; are 



shown may be passable enough as dwelling-houses, but as architecture 

 they have no pretensions, nor has a drawing of this cla?s much claim 

 to be admitted into an academical exhibition. There are one or two 

 designs for the Taylor and Randolph Buildings at Oxford, and we 

 may mention that by Messrs. Mair and Browaie (No. O'oti), as being 

 entitled to considerable praise — as much better, in fact, than any of 

 tliose for the same edifice which were exhibited last year; and it is 

 stated to have been one of the five selected in the first instance by the 

 committee. We should have examined it more attentively than 

 we did at the time, had we then known as miich as we now do of the 

 design which has been adopted. We need not inform our readers 

 that this Last is by Mr. Cockerel!, the Professor of architecture ; but 

 we may assure them it is by several degrees more fantastical and 

 outre than his design for the Royal Exchange, and in some respects 

 perfectly nondescript as to style. How the Professor — who seeras 

 ambitious of obtaining for himself the title of the English Borromini — 

 can reconcile the extravaganzas he has there shown, with the precepts 

 he delivers ex cathedra, cautioning the students against aiming at mere 

 showy eft'ricts, rather than architectural propriety, it puzzles us to 

 guess; — and it would, no doubt, puzzle him still more to explain. 



Messrs. Gough and Roumieu's design for " St. Pancras' National 

 Schools," (No. 970) is a small but pleasing composition, in the Tudor 

 style, with a rather unusual degree of decoration, therefore should the 

 building itself turn out to be as satisfactorj' as the drawing represents 

 it, — which, however, is not invariably the case, it will be nearly the 

 best thing of its kind in the metropolis. No. J096, "Interior of the 

 new Library at Roehampton Priory," by the same arcliitecls, is also 

 sufficiently creditable to them ; but they must excuse us for not ad- 

 miring that for "St. James' Dormitory Chambers, as proposed to be 

 erected" (No. 1080) — yet, we hope, as never will be erected. Were 

 it not too late, we should enter a similar protest against No. 977, " An 

 Elizabethan Villa, now building at Hammersmith, from the designs of 

 Mr. S. Gomme," for it is a mostGommy or 'gummy' affair, as a iriend 

 of ours would call it, — a specimen of all that is most hideous and bar- 

 barous in that style, without any of its redeeming qualities; and it 

 would seem that the architect's aim had been rather to exaggerate 

 than to mitigate any of its deformities. It may be excusable enougli 

 in the possessor of a genuine relique of Elizabethan architecture to be 

 somewhat jealously proud of it — for its antiquity if for nothing else ; 

 but that at the present day any one should tlunk of building for his 

 own habitation ;i ' bran new' absurdity of the kind we here behold, is 

 to us most marvellous. 



No. 98'2, "New Park near Devizes, showing the principal front, 

 with alterations and new carriage entrance," does not impress us vvith 

 any very high idea of the taste or ability of Messrs. Finden and Green. 

 How far they have doctored up the house, we know not : for aught 

 we can tell they may have improved it, but if they have it must have 

 been deplorably bad indeed before, since it is bad enough — we should 

 say, intolerably bad even now. 



Though we wish there were a far greater proportion of interior 

 views than we ever meet with among the architectural drawings, we 

 could very well have spared one of those which Mr. T. L. Walker has 

 sent, of the " Governor's Dining Room at the new Hospital, Bedwortlv 

 Warwickshire," viz. Nos. 1014 and 1088, they being nearly duplicates, 

 showing opposite ends of the same apartments, which although verjr 

 fair as to design, is not so remarkable as to call for such an unusual 

 degree of illustration; and we almost wonder that two drawings of 

 the same subject should have been admitted, when others were turned 

 away for want of room ; or that, as both were received, they were not 

 hung up together as companions. It appears, moreover, to us that 

 either the perspective is very faulty, or else the windows themselves 

 poor in character, owing to the excessive bieadth between the mullions, 

 according to the drawing. 



No. 1027, " View of the London and Brighton Railway Terminus, 

 now erecting at Brighton, from the designs of" D. Mocatta, is ex- 

 ceexiijigly poor both as a drawing and a design ; and we are afraid he can- 

 not shelter himself under the excuse that the subject was an unfavour- 

 able one in itself, or that he was cramped in his resources ; because there 

 is certainly enough of it as to extent, and the same de^gree of decoration 

 might have been far more effectively applied. The extended colon- 

 nade below is in itself appropriate and convenient enough, but as it is 

 made to project from the loftier mass behind it, it seems rather to en- 

 cumber than to ornament it ; neither is it by any means unexception- 

 able in regard to design. We are very far from oljjecting ' upon 

 principle,' to arches being turned upon columns: on the contrary, we 

 consider some of the instances of such combination to be among the 

 happiest effects of Italian architecture. What we complain of is, not 

 that such mode is here adopted, but that it is treated most insipidly, 

 and that want of artistical feeling pervades the whole design. 



At first sight we mistook No. 105G, for a view of the Parthenon or 



2 H 2 



