1850.] 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



2T9 



and weifrhing' +306 tons. This is an apparatus which Archimedes 

 mi^ht liiive sifflied for, and which modern science will know how 

 to turn to account. 



Tiie cost of the experiments to the Railway Company was C530/. 

 (p. 811), besides the time of Mr. Stephenson and Mr. Clark, and 

 without reckoning any contribution from extraneous sources. 

 \Ve are therefore justified in considering that a sum of 10,000/. was 

 devoted to the experiments on which the tubular bridge was 

 founded, and tlie book before us written. The experiments con- 

 sisted of two great series, those at IMillwall and those at Man- 

 chester. In the ?,!jllwall e.vperiments the original cost of the 

 large model was 320/., and the repairs to it in the several experi- 

 ments 600/. 13*. 4rf., making a total of 920/. 13«. id. The Man- 

 chester experiments were continued from January to December, 

 1846, and cost nearly 4000/. Some of the tubes tried in experi- 

 menting were afterwards used up for chimneys and otlierwise on 

 the works at the Britannia. 



We shall now turn to a personal question, which is ratlier of a 

 painful nature; and that is the question between Mr. Stephenson 

 and Mr. William Fairbairn, and with regai'd to which tlie profession 

 have looked forward to this book with some anxiety. Witherto it 

 was difficult to arrive at any correct judgment, tiiough it was easy 

 to see *' ;nper had more to do with tlie matter than auythinjj; else. 

 We think we can make out our way more easily now; and we 

 trust in the end these dissensions may be healed, and that we shall 

 no longer on a grave and important subject have to regret bickei'- 

 ings which do injury to the cause of science as much as to the 

 party in the wrong. 



From this book there is no opening for doubt tli.:t Mr. Ste- 

 phenson it was who first conceived the idea of throwing a hollow 

 beam or covered bridge over the Menai; and therefore any claim 

 narrows itself to after co-operation as to the development of the 

 idea. Mr. Fairbairn was early called upon to assist, upon tlie very 

 good ground that he had paid great attention to the strength of 

 materials. No dispute exists, we believe, as to the extent of Mr. 

 Fairbairn's co-operation — at any rate it is fully enough acknow- 

 ledged in this book - it is only as to the nature of it. Mr. Fair- 

 bairn has set up the claim of being joint-engineer in the produc- 

 tion of the bridges; but even on the technical grounds he has put 

 forward, we cannot see there is any justice in this, or the assump- 

 tion that his name should therefore be joined with Stephenson's 

 on the bridges. We say, we do not admit even the technical 

 grounds of the engagement with Stephenson or the Railway Com- 

 pany ; but we do not allow that the question is to be argued on 

 such grounds. Mr. Fairbairn has gone into a court of equity, he 

 has o]iened the whole matter, and judgment is to be given upon 

 the merits. The question then takes tliis shape — has Mr. Fairbairn 

 an equal claim with j\lr. Stephenson .'' AV'e think not, because 

 Mr. Stephenson was the originator, and because Mr. Fairbairn was 

 introduced by Mr. Stephenson, and therefore subsidiary. 



Looking at it in this light, we go the length of saying that had Mr. 

 Stephenson made any bargain with Mr. Fairbairn for equal honours, 

 he woilUI not have been justified in doing so — he had no right to do so 

 — and he would not have been acknowledged in doing so. The merit 

 and responsibility cf the suggestionwas Mr. Stephenson's; and on the 

 correctness of the principle it chiefly depended whether it could be 

 carried out. The adaptation of the principle was a tentative pro- 

 cess, and it matters little in comparison who carried it out. Mr. 

 Stephenson provided tlie idea, he marshalled the staff for carrying 

 it out, he procured the money for the experiments, and Mr. Fair- 

 bairn would have hardly done his duty creditably had he not 

 achieved what he did. Granted there was a responsibility on Mr. 

 Fairbairn — there was upon every assistant — and Mr. Fairbairn well 

 fulfilled his duty, coming in at the beginning; and Mr. Stephenson's 

 time being so fully taken up, the direction naturally fell upon Mr. 

 Fairbairn, and thereby he had the opportunity of doing more than he 

 would under ordinary circumstances; but tliat by no means raises 

 him to the summit of the hierarchy, though it may advance his posi- 

 tion in it. Whatever Mr. Fairbairn may put forward, the original 

 position of Mr. Stephenson remains untouched; and it is hardly 

 worth while to examine the technical grounds on which Mr. Fair- 

 baii-n attempts to support his case. We are convinced his object 

 is unattainalile; and we are therefore the more concerned the con- 

 troversy should drop, the ill-feeling be allayed, and the former cor- 

 diality be resumed. 



On Mr. Stephenson requesting Mr. Fairbairn's co-operation, 

 Mr. Fairbairn was officially appointed by the Railway {'onipany 

 one of its engineers, so as to give him the power to supervise con- 

 tracts ; but various circumstances occurred very materially to 

 change Mr. Fairbairn's position. That he went zealously into the 



work, Mr. Edwin Clark acknowledges; that he freely and liberally 

 acknowledged Mr. Stei)lienson's origination of the undertaking, bis 

 letters show (p. 812); and that he was not knowingly a cause of 

 the subse(|ucnt alienation, we fully believe. The taking out a patent 

 for the application of the principle with Mr. Stephenson's concur- 

 rence was an effort of Mr. Fairbairn's zeal, but was an instrument 

 of dissension, and the jealousy of Mr. Stephenson's supporters was 

 aroused by representations in the Lancashire papers, that the 

 undertaking was proceeding under Mr. Fairbairn's auspices. ^V■llen 

 the time came to contract for the work, and Mr. Fairbairn claimed, 

 not unfairly, the lion's share (j). 807), it was a matter of coui-se the 

 Company removed him from the office of engineer, and substituted 

 i\Ir. Kdwin Clark (p. 805). After obtaining a large contract, Mr. 

 Fairbairn resigned it, for a consideration, to Mr. Mare; and this 

 circumstance, together with the heavy charge for the experiment, 

 seems to have created an unfavourable feeling with the Railway 

 Company. Mr. Fairbairn was thus in the end neither engineer 

 nor contractor ; and though he gave his co-0|)eration to the last, 

 it is easy to understand how an alienation of feeling arose, and a 

 disappointment, which reacted in his requiring a greater consi- 

 deration for his claims than either Mr. Stephenson or his friends 

 were willing to acknowledge. Let it be hoped, nevertheless, that 

 the handsome recognition of his services in this volume may be 

 considered as a proof of kindly feeling to which he will recipro- 

 cate. 



PICTURE GALLERIES. 



Can the characteristic forms and decorations of classic archi- 

 tecture be retained in modern buildings without deviation from 

 their original constructive purposes.'' It is replied that the 

 restriction of primitive forms to primitive uses can be complied 

 with in no other edifices than those constructed on the type of 

 ancient temples. 



If this objection were valid it were idle to contend longer for 

 architectural truth, for our advocacy would reduce us to this 

 dilemma — we must either give up the use of classic forms alto- 

 gether, or we must make all modern edifices in which they are 

 employed similar to the Madeleine at Paris, mere copies of ancient 

 structures. The objection, however, amounts to this, that the 

 rules of Greek architecture are so strict as to be incapable of 

 cmisistent application to any but a rectangular peripteral building. 

 We concede at once that pointed architecture is infinitely more 

 susceptible of variation than the rival style, from the simple reason 

 tliat arch-construction remove from the former style the restrictions 

 which in the latter limited the distance of inter-spaces to the 

 length of a single block of stone. But in truth, classic architec- 

 ture, even in its ancient simplicity and purity, admitted a diversity 

 of construction which suffices to relieve us from the second horn 

 of the dilemma above stated. The exquisite circular temple at 

 Tivoli, and the atria of several houses at Pompeii, are among in- 

 stances which might be cited of an application of the forms of Greek 

 architecture, with perfect architectural truth, to buildings of which 

 the plans entirely differ from those of the great Athenian tem- 

 ples. 



The Bkrlin Gallery of Pictures must he regarded as one of the 

 most successful instances of similar, adaptation in modern times. 

 'I'his edifice presents a magnificent fa(,'ade of eighteen fluted 

 Corinthian coluiiiiis, supporting an entablature and the flat roof of 

 a portico which extends the wliole front of the building. There is 

 no pediment or other superstructure above the horizontal line of 

 the entablature, but a higher roof rises at some distance behind it 

 from the centre of the building, and is crowned at the corners by 

 bold cipiestrian groups in bronze, whicli stainl in admirable relief 

 against tlie sky^ The magnificent effect of the portico is further 

 eidianced by the noble flight of steps by which it is apjiroached ; 

 and the columns appear the more prominent from the wall beh;:ij 

 them being richly decorated by deeply-coloured frescoes. 



The light is obtained froii'i the roof and side windows. The 

 latter are not decorated by the ridiculous mimicry of pediments, 

 which is nearly universal in England. There is not a sham- 

 pediment nor a sham-column in the whole Berlin Gallery. 



The arrangement of the interior is admirably adajited for the 

 exhibition of its treasures. The Picture Gallery consists of a 

 centre range of compartments, with suites on either side at right 

 angles to it. The whole of this gallery is under one roof, and forms 

 in fact one apartment, but it is divided by screens, extending from 

 the wall between each two \und>j\vs, to about tiiree-fourths the 



