London MontJili/ Journal. 171 



Art. Vr. The Surveyor, Engineer, and Architect ; or, London 

 Monthly Journal of the Physical and Practical Scietices. By a 

 Committee of Practical Surveyors, Engineers, and Architects, of 

 much Experience, and in active Employment. Robert Mudie, 

 Literary Conductor. No. I. 4to, pp= 24, one steel engraving, and 

 some vi'oodcuts. London, 1840. 



The preliminary address enlarges on the influence which the surveyor and 

 the engineer have had in promoting civilisation, by exploring new countries, 

 by planning and executing improvements upon the great scale, with know- 

 ledge of all the circumstances, and for national objects. Such objects, and 

 such means brought to the execution of them in the best, the most useful, 

 the most elegant, the most durable, and, at the same time, the cheapest man- 

 ner, form the joint province of surveyors, engineers, and architects ; but it is 

 not always possible, neither is it necessary, though it were possible, to draw 

 the lines of demarcation between them, and assign to each his department. 



The following principle, which next occurs, deserves the especial attention of 

 the gardener, and on it is founded our practice of occasionally introducing 

 subjects not directly horticultural : — 



" In so far as manual operations are concerned, there must be a division of 

 labour in those higher branches of art, as well as in branches which are more 

 humble ; but the division of labour is one thing, and a good ; while the divi- 

 sion of knowledge and thought is another thing, and an evil." (p. 3.) 



The first article is on the Reform Club-House, of the front elevation of 

 which there is a very handsome steel engraving. Some of the critical re- 

 marks given under this article are good ; but others are, as we think, in bad 

 taste. We give first an example of the latter : — 



" The Union [club-house] is at once poor, patched up, and tawdry, entirely 

 out of keeping, being plain even to meanness in some respects, finical in 

 others. The United Service has so far more consistency, in as much as its 

 architecture is very poor throughout. It may be called Italian, because it 

 cannot be described as being of any other style ; but, then, it is Italian in the 

 last stage of consumption : the style is thoroughly impoverished and enfeebled; 

 and its spirit and gusto are there quite evaporated." (p. 6.) And, again: — 



" Take care to roast the ends of your pig well," says the cookery book, 

 **^ and the middle will roast itself;" so, too, in architecture, be careful to 

 study diligently all those points, whether of minutiae or not, which others are 

 in the habit of overlooking, because you cannot very well, through sheer 

 heedlessness, neglect what you are aware the merest novice in the art instantly 

 directs his attention to. As it appears to us, it is in following such maxims, 

 that the secret of Mr. Barry's generally acknowledged superiority in great 

 measure lies ; not entirely, because there must be the feeling for art, which 

 stimulates to that industry, in which all the faculties are cheerfully devoted to 

 the task ; and industry of this nobler kind, be it observed, is very different 

 from plodding diligence, which, satisfied with doing the ' passably well,' is un< 

 ambitious of the ' better.' " (p. 6.) 



On the other hand, the following passage is an example of judicious cri- 

 ticism, and such as, unlike our first quotation, will be understood both by 

 the general reader and the architect. Comparing the Reform Club-House 

 with Whitehall, the critic says : " Though both are Italian in style, they 

 belong to very different schools, and are designed upon very different prin- 

 ciples. In the one, the introduction of two moderate-sized orders occasions 

 what ought to be principal, namely, the columns and entablatures, to appear 

 rather insignificant, both in relation to the space over which they are scat- 

 tered, and the windows likewise ; while as decorative accessories they are too 

 much, as essential parts of the structure they are not enough. In propor- 

 tion to the entire mass, the upper entablature looks puny and inef&cient; well 

 enough adapted to that particular division of the elevation, but not to the 



N 2 



