380 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. [Novembkr, 



Additional Remarks. 



Fig$. 4 and 5 (Plate XIV) represent on a scale of J inch to a foot, the 

 portions of masonry above the vaults of the tower, for the purpose of ex- 

 hibiting more clearly the nature of the dislocations and the union of the 

 Gothic masonry with the Norman. In these drawings the separate stones 

 are laid down with great precision from actual measurement to a scale of a 

 i of an inch to a foot. 



Fig. 4 corresponds to the upper part of Fig. 2, and shows the state of the 

 masonry of the portions of walls marked r and s, in Fig. 2, as well as the 

 bases of the tower grating. 



The surface of the wall below the vault at E and F, (Fig. 4), was covered 

 with paint so that the joints of the masonry could not be seen, but the sur- 

 face above was easily accessible, and had never been painted or stopped with 

 cement. 

 Fig. 5 represents the portion of east wall marked t in Fig. 3. 

 In both these drawings A B is the Norman string course, and C D the 

 Gothic string course. 



As Fig. 5 is the simplest case I will explain that in the first instance. The 

 Norman string course A B is 3^ in. lower at b than it is at a, and is besides 

 dislocated ; the masonry beneath it is also dislocated and exhibits two great 

 fissures, ce, df, of which the first is 2^ in. wide at e, and the second IJ at/. 

 The north wall of the tower, shown in section at X, is also thrust back very 

 considerably from its proper place. The masonry above the Norman string 

 course is on the contrary close jointed, its beds remain very nearly level, the 

 Gothic string course C, D having only sunk about i. an inch in the centre. 

 There is a slight fissure or dislocation at g, and in some of the other joints, 

 but not at all of the dangerous character of those in the Norman work below 

 A B. There is also a settlement accompanied by fractures at the angle i, 

 but this is occasioned by the sinking of the angle pier M, of the super- 

 structure. 



The diagonal aperture N, which extends into the heart cf the wall, and m 

 my opinion formerly contained some timber work, was allowed to remain 

 open when the tower was carried up, and the stone k, which covered it 

 having fractured, has allowed the angle pier to descend, dragging with it and 

 fracturing the other stones in its neighbourhood, but producing more dislo- 

 cation in the northern wall, Fig. 4, than in this. In this east wall there can be 

 no doubt that the whole of the Norman work was taken down as far as the 

 level of the string course. A, B, when the tower was carried up, and that the 

 Norman spandrils were at that time in very nearly the same state of settle- 

 ment as they are now, for the first course of Gothic stones, a, b, that lie upon 

 the Norman string are cut below to fit the sag of the latter, and their upper 

 bed, m, n, now is level. I 



It wtll also be observed that the next course of stones upon m, n, has been 

 laid in long thin pieces to give more cohesion to the wall. The smaller fis. 

 snres at g shew that the rotten substructure had sunk subsequently to the 

 erection of the tower. 



In Fig. 4 the appearances are more complicated. 



In this northern wall there is a row of apertures, G, H, I, K, L. that 

 plainly once received the beams of a floor or ceiling. Now on this side of 

 the tower the Norman string course, A B, is 7 in. lower at A than at B, 

 while the Gothic string course, C D, is level. But the beam holes are equi- 

 distant from the Norman string course, and are raised about 5^ in. above it. 

 Plainly, therefore, they belong to the Norman structure and not to the 

 Gothic, for they have sunk together with the Norman work, while the Gothic 

 remains level. When the Gothic work was raised the Norman masonry could 

 not have been taken down on this side completely to the string course. A, B, 

 but the Norman stones beneath the beams must have been at least left un- 

 disturbed. That this was the case is clearly seen at K and L, for the stones 

 i, m, that laid under these beams, are 5J in. thick, but the stones of the 

 same course n,p, q, are of different thicknesses, n being 7 in. and q G in. so 

 as to restore the level for the upper beds. The little square stones which are 

 packed in at the corners of these holes, and the correspondence of the ge- 

 neral level of the intermediate masonry with that of the Gothic string course, 

 all show plainly that although at this end of the wall the beams were undis. 

 turned, yet that the whole of the masonry was removed above them, and on 

 their sides with the exception of the stoues, k and m, that supported them. 



At the other end the Norman masonry between the beams, G, H, I, ap- 

 pears to have been quite undisturbed ; r, «, and (, are in this case the upper 

 remaining Norman stones, and this is also shown by the fact that the plane 

 of the whole Norman wall, including these stones, is 4 in. in advance of the 



Gothic wall above. At the other end, B, (as already mentioned and shown 

 in Fig. 5 at E,) the Norman is driven behind the Gothic wall. Upon ex- 

 amining the wall below the vault at E, the projection just mentioned may be 

 seen to die away to nothing in the middle. 



On this face the dislocations of the Norman wall are again much greater 

 than those of the Gothic wall. But it will be seen that the stones of the 

 latter have fractured over every one of the beam apertures. The sinking of 

 the angle pier, M, has also produced a set of crushings in the masonry below. 



These figures also show the dissimilarity between the piers of the grating, 

 their difterent bases and the different widths of their chamfers, some of 

 which again are plain, and some swelled with the usual moulding. Compare 

 for example P, Q. R, Fig. 4. 



ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS' MONOPOLY AND CRUSADE 

 AGAINST THE EMPLOYMENT OF ARCHITECTS. 



Sir There are no very cheering prospects held out to the architects of this 



day , if the intentions of the " Ecclesiastical Commissioners " as regards 

 " houses of residence for the Clergy," and of the " Education Commis- 

 sioners " as regards schools and houses be carried out to the letter. Amongst 

 the regulations adopted by the former Board is the following ;— " Every 

 house proposed to be purchased must be surveyed by the architect of the 

 Commissioners ; and every new house be built according to his designs, and 

 under 'his exclusive superintendence." Now in cases of this kind, wherein 

 an outlay of £900, the Commissioners require to have advanced t/iem from 

 X45U to £540, this monopoly of patronage is somewhat startling. Is it to 

 be argued that there are not many architects whom the Clergymen would 

 prefer to employ, whose taste and local knowledge of cost and material would 

 be quite as valuable as that of the London architect to the Commissioners ? 

 Surely it would be sufticient that he should exercise controul as to their cost 

 and construction. There would be as much reason in the metropolitan and 

 Diocesan Church Building Societies refusing grants to all applications, but 

 those in which their own architects were employed in the erection or altera- 

 tion of the churches. 



In the case of the Education Commissioners, independently of their having 

 pubbshed " cut and dried " plans, elevations, and sections (of very question- 

 able merit) for school houses of every size; apphcants are advised, " If their 

 j.lans do not exactly suit to point out such alterations as may be desired, and 

 the architect of the Commissioners will send down careful drawings of the 

 ground plan and elevation ; " and clergymen are advised " not to avail them- 

 selves of the services of the local architect until this stage of the proceed- 

 ings," when he may be " requested to prepare specification and working 

 drawings for the execution of the work." Really this is too impudent ! 

 Men of taste and education are not to be supposed capable of properly ar- 

 ranging a trumpery little parish school, and yet are to be called upon to 

 prepare a specification and working drawings to carry out another man's 

 design ! I trust no respectable architect wdl so far forget what is due to his 

 profession as to comply with such proposals. 



I must leave to more experienced beads the suggestion of a remedy for 

 these barefaced joljs, (for really they deserve no milder terra) ; I could not 

 refrain from calling attention to them. 



Your obedient servant, 

 London, Oct. 1842. T. II. W. 



[We are sorry to say that there is a strong desire to adopt this centralizing 

 system, not only by the above Commissioners, but also by other public boards, 

 which requires the active perseverance of both professions, the architect and 

 engineer, to counteract. We shall be happy to receive any information on 

 so unjust an encroachment, that we may grapple with such a formidable 

 enemy, and endeavour to put a stop to the system at the onset.— Editor.] 



Wood Pavemf.nt.— The first wood pavement that was put down in London, 

 at Ibe east end of ONford Street, four years since, is now being reversed and 

 relaid. and causes much surprise by ils great durability, many of Ibe blocks 

 nut being reduced hair an inch of their origmal length, which was one foot, 

 though exposed to all the trallic of Oxford Street. 



