MECHANICAL AND USEFUL ARTS. 97 



been shown that this operation was suceessful in excluding moisture 

 and preventing decay of the stone. 



Next, let us see what this professional blunder has already cost 

 the nation. 



A Return published of all sums paid for indurating or preserving the external 

 stonework and the iron roofs of the Houses of Parliament since the year 1853 

 shows that 3517L 10s. lid. have been devoted to that purpose. The works ap- 

 pear to have been undertaken by Mr. G. B. Daines and Mr. N. C. Szerelmey. 

 The former gentleman received 1*. per yard superficial for stonework and Is. Wd. 

 per yard for the iron roofing. Mr. Szerelmey was paid 2s. 2d. and 2s. per yard 

 for the roofing, and Is. per yard for the stonework. Referring to the decay of 

 the stone used in the new Houses of Parliament, Sir Charles Barry said : — 

 " The decay which has taken place in the stone employed in the new Palace 

 seems to be confined principally to the parapets, where the stone is exposed on 

 two faces ; also in the water-tables, sills, cappings, base3, and plinths, and the 

 courses of stone above and below them, within the influence of the drippings 

 and splasbings of showers of rain (particularly where opposed to the south 

 and south-west winds), and to a very limited extent on the plain faces of the 

 ashlar, owing probably to soft varieties of the stone. A fruitful source of 

 decay is also due to the unusual and extensive use of water externally, for pur- 

 poses of ventilation, by which a considerable portion of the masonry is constantly 

 rendered alternately wet and dry; which should be prevented, if possible, as it 

 is the severest test to which any stone can be subjected. Experience has fully 

 satisfied my mind that in proportion as stones are absorbent, so in proportion is 

 the extent of discoloration and decay which ensue in a smoky and impure 

 atmosphere like that of London." 



"We well remember the costly travelling Commission for collecting 

 specimens of the building-stones for the new Palace ; and it is 

 grievous to find that all such precautionary measures have been 

 frustrated. But, who is to blame ? Mr. C. H. Smith has justified his 

 selection of the Anston stone, as the stone of all others best calcu- 

 lated to withstand the effects of the London atmosphere, because it 

 has resisted for some centuries the atmosphere of Yorkshire, its natural 

 element, in several of the old churches in the neighbourhood of the 

 quarries ; and, consequently, it would have stood equally well in 

 London, had greater care and supervision been used in its selection. 



Here we must, however, protest against the argument that because 

 stone lasts well in buildings in the locality wherein it is found, it 

 should last equally well in another locality. This was explained not 

 to be the fact, at the time the selection of the stone was made, in a 

 short note to the Times journal ; and we recollect the statement to 

 have been received with surprise and even incredulity.* 



Mr. Smith, in his defence, maintains that official supervision of 

 the stone was necessary ; upon which Mr. Grissell, the contractor, 

 conceiving an attempt to be made to shift the blame upon him, asks, 

 How comes it that Mr. Smith and the Commissioners did not recom- 

 mend at the onset, that a practical chemist should be resident at the 



* The statement to which we refer is in a note pppended to Mr. George God- 

 win's communication of the Commissioners' Report to the Civil Engineer and 

 Architects' Journal. The note is as follows : — " The publication of this docu- 

 ment has occasioned a Mr. John Mallcott to observe in the Times, that ' all stone, 

 made use of in the immediate neighbourhood of its own quarries is more likely 

 to endure that atmosphere than if it be removed therefrom, though only thirty 

 or forty miles.' " (See Year-Book of Farts, 1810, p. 78.) Twenty years' expo- 

 rience has shown Mr. Mallcott's statement to be correct. 



