310 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECTS JOURNAL. 



[September, 



COMPETITION DESIGNS. 



(Benevolent Imtitution for the Relief of Aged and Injlrm Journey man 



Tailors.) 



The mal-administration of competitions for designs becoming every 

 day more apparent, the indignities ami imposition practiced upon 

 architects who are foolish enougli to yield to importunilv and submit 

 the result of their labours to the decision of men not merely unfitted 

 for the task, but in most cases prepared to decide in a certain maimer 

 even before tlie reception of the drawings, becoming additionally 



flaring, it surely only needs that some few more hi me-cases should 

 e brought forcibly before the public eye to induce the entire aban- 

 donment of the present scandalous system, and to enforce from com- 

 mittees an honest decision and something like consideration for the 

 time and talents of the professional men applied to. With this view 

 we proceed to lay before our readers the particulars of a recent com- 

 petition which have come to oiir knowledge in the hope that the 

 statement may aid in rousing public indignation against such pro- 

 ceedings : furthermore, we have a latent hope that by putting the 

 whole matter fairly before tlie parties interested they may be led, as it 

 is not yet too late, to retrace their steps. 



Some few months ago the Committee of the Institution named at 

 the head of this article, requiring designs for an asylum which they 

 propose to erect in the Hampstead Road, invited a limited number 

 of architects to forward drawings, namely Messrs. Lee and Duesbury, 

 Mr. Jones, Mr. VuUiamy, Mr. Thomas Meyer, Messrs. Winterbottom 

 and Sands, Mr. George Godwin, and Mr. E. H. Browne. 



It being understood that one of the competitors, namely Mr. Meyer, 

 was brother of a member of the Committee and had already sent in a 

 design, some of the other architects inquired pointedly whether or not 

 this gentleman was to be in any degree considered more than the rest, 

 and were informed by various members of the committee that the best 

 design would positively be accepted whether made by Mr. A. or 

 Mr. B. Designs were accordingly sent in by all the gentlemen we 

 have named. A building committee was appointed by the general 

 committee to examine the drawings, and recommend for adoption that 

 which they considered the best. They accordingly met various 

 times, gave a long consideration to the matter, and ultimately selected 

 Mr. Godwin's design as the fittest for their purpose ; a written report 

 to this effect was drawn up and the matter was talked of out of doors 

 as a thing settled. Several weeks having elapsed after this had 

 reached Mr. Godwin's ears accidentally, without his receivhig any 

 special communication, he applied to know how the competition had 

 terminated, and the following letter was shortly afterwards sent to hira: 



Benevolent Institution, S;c. 

 32, Sach'ille Street, 

 \ithJuly, 1841. 

 Sia — I beg leave to inform you that, by a decision of the Board of Di- 

 rectors, their choice of an architect has fallen on V.i. Meyer. 



I am, Sir, 



Your obedient servant, 

 George Godwin, Jun., Esq. T. P. Davidson, Sec. 



The gentleman to whom this was addressed accordingly called the 

 next day to fetch away his drawings, and being shown into the room 

 of meeting, saw there five of the seven sets of designs, including those 

 selected as the best. In consequence of this examination he imme- 

 diately addressed a letter to the Board, which, as it puts the whole 

 matter in the fairest point of view possible we here annex 



To the President and Directors of the Institution/or the relief of infirm 

 Journeyman I'aihrt. 



Brompton, July 17, 1841. 



Gentlemkx — I have the honour to acknowledge a note from your Secre- 

 tary, stating " that the choice of an architect has fallen on Mr. Meyer." 



Some time previously I was told, in three different quarters, that my plans 

 had been selected by the Committee as the most approved, and I fclti there- 

 fore, a little disappointed on receiving official intimation to the contrary ; 

 still, considering tliat I must have been misinformed, I was of course quite 

 disposed to bow to the decision in silence, and to believe that a better plan 

 than my own had been chosen. 



Applying, however, a few days hack in SackviUe Street to regain the draw- 

 ings, I there saw the various designs of the other competitors. Amongst 

 them were those of the preferred candidate, and an examination of these led 

 me to the conviction, that such a decision had not been come to as those 

 architects who had given their time and attention to the subject at the re- 

 quest of the IJoard, had every right to expect. I make this remark with the 

 greatest deference to every member of the Board, for many of whom per- 

 sonally I have great respect. 

 , Far be it from me to deny that the Boai'd had right to appoint arv archi- 



tect they pleased ; what I would very deferentially submit is, that having 

 induced six or seven architects to make plaus for the proposed asylum, at an 

 expense of both time and money, ia the full persuasion that the author of the 

 best design wonid be aiipoiuted to execute the building, the Board were 

 bound to make that selection »olely on the ground of superiority, and with- 

 out reference to the name of the author of the plan. 



That such has not l)ccn the case, referring solely to the designs submitted, 

 anil without the slightest intention of disparaging Mr. Meyer's fitness for 

 the task, I venture without hesitation to assert. 



Apart from private grounds (and even in this respect, as my jilan was se- 

 lected by the Buihliug Committee after due consideration, as the best adapted 

 to your purpose, I am, perhaps, authorized to address you,) I am induced ttt 

 this step by strong pnhlic motives — by that desire to obtain a just adminis- 

 tration of competitions for designs which is felt at tliis time by all those who 

 wish the prosperity of the arts in England. 



On this ground then, gentlemen, 1 appeal to your sense of justice, and the 

 desire which, 1 will venture to behcve, you all have to maintain the gOod 

 opinion of the world, to give this matter re-consideration. 



I hope sincerely that you will not deem any thing I have said disrespectful 

 in the slightest degree, and that you will permit me to subscribe myself, 

 gentlemen, 



(Waiting your decision), 



Your hmnble servant, 



Geo. Godwin, Jun., Architect. 



The result of this letter was that the Board, at their next meeting, 

 refused to confirm the appointment of Mr. Meyer, and it was proposed 

 that the whole of the designs should be referred back to the decision 

 of one or more architects. A subsequent meeting, however, influenced 

 in a manner one would hardly venture to hint at, overturned this in- 

 tention and confirmed the original appointment. Here the matter 

 stands. We have seen the various plans, and without stopping to 

 inquire whether Mr. Godwin's plan is the best (a point we don't in 

 the least care for), we have no hesitation in saying that not merely is 

 the selected design not the best, but that it is perhaps the least en- 

 titled of any one of the seven to claim for its author the appointment. 

 If the Board desired to employ Mr. Meyer, why did they not do so in 

 the first instance ? No one would have questioned bis fitness, or their 

 right to appoint. But having given seven gentlemen the trouble, and 

 led them into the expence, by special invitation, of preparing designs, 

 we assert that the Board were bound, by every feeling of honesty, to 

 appoint the author of the best plan, without the slightest reference to 

 his name or his connexion with the society. We hope even now it is 

 not too late for redress. 



COMPETITION. 



Sir — If your readers will refer to the Athenaeum for the last month, they 

 will find an account of a highly entertaining squabble arising out of the com- 

 petition for a new church in the parish of Paddington. 



When this competition was announced, I applied for the particulars, and 

 subsequently for further information ou a few points which did not appear to 

 my humble comprehension to be quite explained in the instructions. With- 

 out troubling you with the whole list, I will mention one question, viz. How 

 many of the prescribed sittings were to be in pews, and how many in free 

 seats ? to which I took the liberty to add the further inquiries, whether any 

 member of the vestry would be permitted to compete, and to whose judg- 

 ment the designs were to be submitted. To which answer was made, to the 

 first question, that many architects had applied for the like information, but 

 that the instructions already given were considered sufficient— to the second, 

 that no member of the vestry could have an interest in any parish work — and 

 to the third, that it was calculated to give great offence I and that it was 

 quite enough for the architect to know that the parties concerned were "all 

 honouralile men." 



Of course all applicants were obliged to be content with the same answers, 

 for, of course, nobody gave, or profited by, private information — nobody ever 

 does. 1 submit, therefore, that any one who competed after receiving such 

 answers, got what he deserved, whatever he may have or may think he has 

 to complain of, and I trust th.at none of the profession who lend themselves 

 to the system of scrambUng for jobs in the dark, will ever be better treated. 



I am, Sir, 



26<A August. Yonr obedient servant, 



T. J. 



ON RAILWAY CARRIAGE WHEELS. 



Sir — In your number for June last, there is a paper, page 197, pro- 

 fessing to contain accounts of improvements iu Railway Carriage 

 Wheels. 



The writer's first two heads of method contain two different modes 

 of constructing the axle of a pair of wheels, to allow these to turn in- 

 dependently. One would infer from his manner of stating the modes, 

 that they should be united in one pair. They evidently cannot. At 

 all events, he implies that, on either plan, the independent rolling of 



