1841.] 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



315 



111 thus fully and freely criticising the evidence of Mr. Brunei, 

 I trust that gentleman will do me the justice to believe that the im- 

 portance attached to his opinions is my apologv for subjecting those 

 opinions to rigid review, and the object of the Conimiltee, viz. to 

 provide for and secure the public safety, renders it a duty of every 

 well-wisher fo railways to use his best efforts to assist such object. 

 1 purpose continuing my observations in your nest paper ; meanwhile 



i remain, Sir, 



Your obedient servant, 

 15, Stamford Street, Blachfriars Road. W. J. Cuktis. 



July 22. 



REMARKS ON MR. BARRETT'S OBSERVATIONS ON 

 BARS, &c. 



Sir — I have read in the July number of your Journal some observa- 

 tions bv Mr. Barrett, on Mr. Brook's New Theory of Bars. Not having 

 had time to peruse the work of the latter gentleman, I shall not pre- 

 sume as vet to form any opinion upon it ; nor do I mean at present to 

 make anv remarks on Mr. Barrett's paper further than relates to a parti- 

 cular passage. Mr. Barrett says, "at the Neva, Gulf of Finland, the 

 Narva, Dantzic, the Danube, the Nile, and many other places, the current 

 without intermission (there being no food tid() is perpetually running 

 out at the rate of six, seven, or eight knots per hour, and yet the old 

 entrances to these rivers have been blocked up by impassable bars, 

 &c." — On this passage I will take the liberty to observe in the first 

 place, that it presents one among too many examples of the confusion 

 arising from hasty writing. Thus the names of rivers are mixed up 

 with those of places in a way to render the writer's meaning rather 

 doubtful. I presume, however, Mr. Barrett means to say — the Neva, 

 at its effluence into the Gulf of Finland, the Narova, (not the Narva, 

 which is a town) also at its egress into the Gulf of Finland, the Vis- 

 tula rnot named) at Dantzic, tlie Danube and the Nile at their entrance 

 severally, into the Black Sea and into the Mediterranean. 



And again, when Mr. Barrett says, "the currents of these rivers (at 

 their embouchures understood) is perpetually running out at the rate 

 of six, seven, or eight knots per hour, there being no food ti'dcf," we 

 are at a loss to understand whether the six, seven, or eight knots, re- 

 fer severally to any three of the five rivers, and, if so, to which respec- 

 tively, or whether the writer means that each of the five rivers has a 

 current constantly running out without impediment, at the rate of 

 from six to eight knots an hour, according to the season. The latter 

 meaning seems to be the most rational. Now, with all due deference, 

 I would observe, that the rivers mentioned ditTer so essentially in their 

 characters that their currents must be very dissimilar, as must also the 

 quantity and the quality (as regards sedimentary matter) of their 

 waters. As to the Neva in particular, I know not whence Mr. Barrett 

 has gleaned the incorrect information as to the rapidity of its current; 

 but 1 beg leave to assure him, on the best authority, that its ordinary 

 velocity, so far from being from six to eight knots per hour, is 27 

 inches per second, or 2^ knots an hour. I cannot state with equal 

 confidence the velocities of the other rivers at their embouchures, 

 neither could I point out, without taking up much more room than 

 you have to spare, the several particulars in which the rivers men- 

 tioned differ from one another; nor is it essential to my present pur- 

 pose. The point to which I would specially draw attention is this. 



According to Mr. Barrett, it is the deposit, by the outflowing waters 

 of rivers, of the debris with which they are charged, that forms bars, 

 whether there be tide or not, and in proof of this assertion, he gives 

 as an instance among other rivers, the Neva. Now admitting the 

 general correctness of his vie%vs on the formation of bar?, it must be 

 confessed he has been most unhappy in mentioning the bar at the 

 mouth of the Neva as a case in point. The fact is, the Neva, of all 

 rivers in the world, is the least obnoxious to the reproach of forming 

 a bar to prevent ingress ; on the contrary, she does all she can to open 

 her mouth and invite entrance. True, there is a bar, but the materials 

 of that bar are brought not by tie river but by the sea. 



The Neva at St. Petersburg is 50 feet deep, and, having deposited 

 all impurities in the immense Ladoga, its waters are at all times, ex- 

 cept when a strong wind blows in from the seaward for any continuance, 

 as clear as crystal. 



The head of tlie Gulf of Finland narrows gradually to the very 

 mouth, or rather mouths of the river : accordingly when a strong wind 

 blows in from the Gulf, a sea is soon raised whose waves, being pent 

 in, cross and break, and, with the sand stirred up from the bottom rush 

 for escape to the open mouths of the Neva, where being met by the 

 obstacle of the descending current of the stream (bearing along in its 

 main stream a mass of IIG.OOO cubic feet of water in a second; there 

 naturally results an annihilation of force and a deposit or bar of sand. 



This being the fact, I am sure Mr. Barrett will see the impropriety 

 of bringing in the Neva in support of an argument to which it does 

 not apply. 



The truth is, a bar or deposit will ever be formed where two bodies 

 of water meet, and one or both is charged with detrital matter; but 

 in many cases it is the sea, and not lite river which furnishes the whole 

 of the material of the bar, and in almost every case, I believe, it brings 

 its quota to the mass. 



In conclusion. Sir, for I have already trespassed too far, I would say, 

 the subject of bars is a most interesting and a most important one ; 

 but those who discuss it cannot be too careful in the choice of facts in 

 support of their arguments if they would not furnish weapons against 

 themselves. 



I am. Sir, your most obedient servant, 



J. R. Jacksojt. 



P.S. As connected with the subject of bars and sand-banks, I cannot 

 refrain from adverting to a common error which is being continually 

 repeated by persons writing on these matters, viz., that the sand of 

 rivers and that on the sea beach, results from the trituration of the 

 stones rolled by the stream or agitated by the waves. Now Mr. Editor, 

 it is physically impossible that sand can be formed in this way. Sand 

 is an original formation, and all that running water and waves do or 

 can eftect is, to wash away the lighter matter, and leave, or carry away, 

 and deposit the sand in particular places. Trituration in the beds of 

 rivers and on the beach, will wear away stones and rocks and polish 

 (hem, and the result will be a fine impalpable powder, but not one 

 particle of sand will be formed in the process, were it to continue till 

 doomsday. It is high time this egregious error was exploded, an 

 error wdiich could never have gained credit but for that unaccountable 

 indolence of mind which leads so many to take every thing for granted 

 without a moment's reflection. 



J. R. J. 



ON CANDIDUS'S REMARKS ON THE LECTURES OF THE 

 PROFESSOR OF ARCHITECTURE. 



Professors, whether of architecture or any other art or science, 

 are undoubtedly public men, and as such are open to the most un- 

 limited criticism ; but, by the same rule, the critics must submit to be 

 attacked in their turn, if any one of the public should think proper. 

 But it should be remembered that abuse is not criticism, and that 

 more elfect w ill be produced by clearly pointing out errors than by the 

 use of "damnable" expressions, which is the style I alluded to, and 

 which will be found scattered occasionally through the fasciculi. I 

 should not, however, have noticed it, had not C.mJidus been so much 

 in the habit of boasting of his freedom of speech, which, however, by 

 his own confession, avails but little, as it is evident he might as welt 

 "try to tickle a rhinoceros with a rose leaf" as attempt, with a oue 

 Candidus power, what it would require sixty to effect. 



The possibility of treating Gothic architecture properly so as to> 

 conduce to comfort, is still unproved. I find repeated the bare asser- 

 tion of the necessity for treating it with intelligence and ability, but 

 no evidence produced to show that the greatest ability can lead to 

 satisfactory results. 



If no more was to be expected from Grecian and Roman than is to 

 be fouud at the British Museum and other works by tlie same architect 

 or others of his school, I should then call for Gothic or anv other style 

 to save us from such insipid abortions, which are, at any rate, as bad 

 as facsimilies of Gothic, and much worse, inasmuch as they have been 

 so much more often repeated ; but I liave a higher opinion of the re- 

 sources of those styles than to believe such to be the case, and from 

 some former remarks of Candidus, I think he will agree with me in 

 that point at least. I shall make no comnieut on the preference appa- 

 rently given to tlie spire of St. George's, Bloomsbuiy, over that of 

 Bow Church ; such an assertion would require more boldness than 

 even Candidus is gifted with — it can therefore be only a mischievous 

 insertion of the printer's devil. , 



Barry has taken up Gothic architecture with an originality of con- 

 ception to be found in no other architect — but even his success will 

 not warrant the assumption that we shall ever be able to incorporate 

 the principles of the style with the habits of the present day. At the 

 period at wdiich this style flourished, it followed a regularly progress- 

 ing course, commencing with the Norman. This was gradually im- 

 proved upon till it resulted in the early English, wdiicli, by further 

 modifications, became that of the decorated period, the most perfect 

 of all. From that time \l increased in richness and exuberance, but 

 declined in purity till it was worn out in the reign of Henry VIII. 

 Now I cannot see how we can, with advantage, dip down into any one 



2 U 2 



