IPSO.] 



THE CIVIL EXGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



249 



OPEN TIMBER ROOFS. 



Glances at the Structural Principle of the linnf of Westminster 

 Hall, and the indications of a disused Method of .Supporting Roofs, 

 afforded by existing evidences in this Countri/, and analogous Con- 

 tinental Examples. By Thomas Mohkis, Esq., Architect. (Paper 

 read at the Royal Institute of British Architects, June 'ittli.) 



Having a few years ago, in a paper to which you did me the 

 honour to listen, treated on mediaival wooden roofs, and endea- 

 voured to exemplify the structural principle of that of Westminster 

 Hall, I have not read with indifference some recently published 

 adverse opinions; and the grateful sense I entertain of your 

 indulgence on former occasions, leads me, though with much diffi- 

 dence, to bring a few remarks, thus directly, under the notice of 

 gentlemen so highly qualified to exercise a judgment on the subject. 



As the opinions alluded to arose from the review of a popular 

 and very useful collection of open timber church roofs, it may be 

 at once stated, that these are so inferior in size and scientific 

 development to the finer domestic specimens (the boldest eccle- 

 siastical example scarcely exceeding thirty feet, while Westminster 

 Hall is sixty-eight feet wide), that I regai-d the volume in question, 

 and its authors, as perfectly unobnoxious to remark, in a critical 

 consideration of the matter. 



Those, indeed, who, from a conviction of the highly suitable and 

 effective character of the open wooden roof for sacred, as well as 

 civil edifices, would wish to revive and extend its application at 

 the present time on true principles, will, I think, prosecute their 

 object, with the fairest aim at excellence, by the diligent examina- 



magnitude and ability of contrivance, than that of Westminster 

 Hall. A recognition of the true system of its construction is 

 calculated to be highly conducive to the progressive excellence of 

 such works, and I shall esteem it a great satisfaction to be, however 

 humbly, useful in so desirable a result. 



Two authorities condemnatory of this roof have been brought 

 more prominently forward — namely, Mr. Bartholomew and Dr. 

 Robison. The first of these says, "No work on the eartli perhaps 

 exhibits more excellence of workmanship, and perhaps none shows 

 more assiduity and skill of an inferior kind to obviate the thrusting 

 power of the roof, but the whole being constructed on false and 

 unscientific principles, it is in vain that this want of science is 

 concealed by intricacy of framing and excellence of workmanship." 

 If I am not mistaken, the writer here quoted has been entirely 

 misled by the intricacy of the merely subordinate panelling or 

 tracery; but as this will presently be more fully entered into, 1 

 shall proceed to Dr. Robison's view of the case. 



"Westminster Hall," he says, "exhibits a specimen of the false 

 taste of the Norman roofs. It contains the essential parts indeed, 

 very properly disposed: but they are hidden, or intentionally 

 covered, with what is conceived to be ornamental, and this is an 

 imitation of stone arches, crammed in between slender pillars, 

 which hang down from the principal frames, trusses, or rafters. 

 In a pure Norman roof, such as Turnaway Hall, the essential parts 

 ai-e exhibited as things understood, and therefore relished." 



It is sui'prising that a paragraph, betraying such extreme 

 ignorance of dates and architectural characteristics, should have 

 emanated from a writer of the Doctor's standing, even in the last 

 century, and yet more astonishing that it should be put forward by 



tion of those stupendous examples devoted to secular uses, in 

 which the resources of art are most fully displayed. They will 

 thus be best prepared to impart intrinsic merit to ecclesiastical 

 works, too often left to rest their claim for respect on embellish- 

 ments received from the carver or the colourist. 



Had we examples of this latter kind only, notwithstanding the 

 poetically typical significance and elaboration of detail possessed 

 by many, the charge against our ancestors of a total failure to 

 assimilate open roofs with the compressible architecture, or that 

 called Gothic, might have remained uncontroverted; but, fortu- 

 nately, we have instances of the most successful treatment, and of 

 such none are more worthy of admiration, both for unapproached 



a professional critic of the present day. It clearly shows, however, 

 the impression that the internal parts of the truss reallj' depend 

 from the main rafters. Excepting the lower part of the walls, the 

 Norman hall of AVilliam Rufus was re-buUt three centuries after- 

 wards by Richard the Second, who, on its completion, in the year 

 1399, solemnised Christmas by a characteristically splendid feast; 

 and every lineament of the roof, so far from partaking of the 

 Norman manner, proclaims its origin to have been late in the four- 

 teenth century. 



The error in thus following Dr. Robison might alone warrant a 

 doubt whether the concealments of which the writer who quotes 

 him speaks actually exist, and whether his assertion, that "con- 

 Si 



