244 THE BUILDING NEWS. Marcu 22, 1872: i ———— faith. I then, wherever I had the chance, examined every Oolitic stone I could get at (indeed all sorts I could get at), but always in walls, not in blocks. Caen stone I had excellent chances at, and it was this stone at Dover, Folkstone, &c., and Corsham and the other Downs at Brighton, &e,, on which I first noticed the sad effects of nitrification or salt- petring. Many stones from various places come into this class, many of whose names I have forgotten, but all known by the same signs, if good or bad. Box Ground, with Clipsham, and perhaps Barnack not sure of the last name), may be called a sub- class, and Portland another, perhaps, though the marks in the latter are not like the former, yet plain enough. Magnesian limestone may be almost classed with the Golitie, for many of its marks are common, except what I shall say about the roe particles. Many other classes of stone I might mention, but most will be noticed as I proceed. I shall say in this letter what I have to say about Bath and similar stones, but in the meantime I shall give a few of my general deductions, requesting those who choose to verify or prove them false as the case may be. The first is colour. Let those who wish to see one of the very worst colours for stone, go view the Houses of Parliament, where the stone is wasting, and he will see it. Ochre, ochrey-brown, brownish ochre, shading down to a dirty brown, yet generally slightly ochre, are colours, and shades of colours, always found more or less (generally more) a sign of bad stone—no exceptions. This applies to all sorts of-stone, without any example otherwise, that I ever saw. Wherever this ochrey tinge exists, even ever so slight, the tinge may be looked on as denoting destructibility in some degree. Compare Bath, Pains- wick, best Ancaster, and others, to be satisfied with this. In judging of shades, care must be taken not to confound an iron brown and its lighter shades with those I have mentioned, for the iron browns, &e., are signs for good. I am, however, not sufli- ciently acquainted with the colourist’s technical terms to explain myself clearly. Any dull dirty- lodking colour, when seen on a fresh fracture, (and all stone ought to be examined on a newly-broken face) is a bad sign. If on examining a fractured face the particles appear loose, broken, as sometimes hap- pens with dolite stones, and, worst of all, if both loose and broken, the stone is not very good; indeed, in the latter cases I should be inclined to say bad, and very bad. Others I gave in my last letter; what others I may notice shall be noticed as I proceed. I have already noticed that all good stone should be free from dirt between the particles; the particles themselyes and cementing material should appear bright and clean; but here follow my rales for de- termining without microscope :— i. Equality and goodness of colour throughout. 2. In cutting with saw: If the sawings be dark coloured ; if the saw goes down too much, like cut- ting pure soft chalk; if the saw rattles too much, the stone being now scarcely cutable, now as it ought to go (which latter sometimes happens) and again with too much ease, and, generally brown sawings, I pronounce at once something wrong. But as 1 cannot get in all I have to say about Bath stone in this letter, I shall leave it for next.—I am, &e., Winchester, March 16. C. A. Wrppie. P.S.—I purpose sending a description for forms of builders’ books, as I think you once desired some one to do. If suitable, it may be used, but if not it may go into waster-paper basket. Since I wrote the above, I have seen ‘‘ Amateur’s” letter, which bears me out about seasoning stone more than he, perhaps, thinks; for if frost hurt the stone in a winter or two, itis badindeed. Saw up the blocks to sizes wanted, they would soon dry.—C. A. W.
PLUMBING, Sir,—Your correspondent “ R. P. C. W.,” at page 225, tells us that drips of only 1}in. depth are the usual practice in England. If so, it appears to me that it is not a very good practice ; but seeing another correspondent and a Clerk of Works, at page 101, says the depth should be ‘ 24in.,” it would seem the i}in. system does not obtain everywhere. As to old seventeenth and eighteenth century gutters having only lin. drips, that ouly shows their bad style of work. When, however, “R. P. C. W.” goes on to tell us that it ‘‘ will be allthe same if the drip is lin. or Gin.;” that is nonsense, and, I am sorry to say, would lead one to suppose that he either does not properly understand his subject, or else that he has written too hastily. When the drip is so little as either lin. or 1in., it is customary to bend down the upper lead the full depth of drip, which tends towards “capillary attraction” having scope; but with a drip of Sin., the upper lead needs only to be bent down about 2in., which prevents this capillary attraction, especially if gutters are cleaned out oc- casionally, as they ought to be. Should the depth of drip be “Gin.,” then, although upper lead be bent down 3in., say, no capillary attraction can set in until either 3in. of dirt or water collects in the lower gutter. Consequently, to look at this in a scientific manner, we see that the depth of drip ought to be sufficient to allow the plumber to give the necessary cover to lead at edge of drip, and at same time keep his upper lead lin. or more from sole of lower gutter. As to the reference made by “R. P. C. W.” to a similarity between some of his ideas and those in Article IV. on “ Plumbing,” that only shows that if he had a little more patience, he would have seen that there was no necessity for the style of criticism he begun with. As to Article VI. on ‘ Plumbing,” I find at page 212, and near centre of first column, a dis- crepancy between the text and the engraving. In the text we are told that “‘ Fig. 36 shows full-sized section (of wood-roll) suitable for 2in. zine roll caps,” and, it goes on to say, “ this wood-roll is 17in. broad, and about 23in, high ;” but when we look at Fig. 36, we find that instead of it being 23in. by 1fin., it is only about half that; the engraving therefore must have been reduced, owing to some misunderstanding
of the engraver—as the size “1 fin. by 2§in.” is that suitable for 2in. zinc roll-caps, and it agrees with the other dimensions given. For these reasons, therefore, Fig. 36 ought surely to appear as I beg leave here to give it.—I am, &c., P. HOUSE AT BEXLEY HEATH. Srr,—As “ house planning” is an interesting sub- ject tomany of your readers at the present time, may I be allowed to offer a few remarks upon the plans of a house at Bexley, Kent, published in your journal last week? In the notice accompanying them they are said to “have been carefully and conveniently arranged,” and this statement has in- duced me to write pointing out what appears to me serious inconveniences in them :— 1. The porch is in an angle of the building, and consequently it is difficult for a carriage to approach it. A person ought to be able to step into a carriage from the porch without being subject to the in- clemency of the weather. 2. There is no vestibule, therefore the hall is not so private as it should be, and it is subject to sudden gusts of cold air for the same reason. 3. The hall is badly lighted. The only window that gives it light is placed at the extreme end of the passage by the back entrance, and throws its light across the passage. 4. The water-closet on the ground-floor is very undesirably placed, near the back entrance door, and to get to it one has to pass the kitchen door. 5. The fireplaces of the principal rooms are placed too close to the doors. 6. The dining-room cannot be conveniently served from the kitchen. The servants must bring everything through the hall and pass the drawing- room door. 7. Thekitchen door opens immediately into the hall, and, therefore, the smells of cooking, &c., have easy access throughout the house. 8. The accommodation and convenience of the kitchen are greatly lessened by its being made, as it necessarily is, a passage way from the hall to the offices and servants’ entrance. 9. There is no separate staircase for servants; and no water-closet on the chamber floor. Conse- quently the servants’ bedrooms are not distinet from the principal bedrooms, and all the slops of the house, the dirty linen, the bedroom carpets, &c., must be brought down through the hall. 10. The same remark as No. 5 applies to the chamber plan. 11. The beds cannot be desirably placed in three rooms at least, on account of the position of the doors, fireplaces, and windows. In round figures I find the cubical contents of the villa to be 60,000 cubie feet, the limit set in the the “House Planning Competition,” and it is to be hoped that that competition will be the means of laying before the readers of the Burtpina News, and the profession generally, some good, well, and conveniently planned houses, which shallserve as models, and the groundwork for the future planning of “English villas” and “ mansions,” free from such drawbacks pointed out above. It is the plan that is the essential point; an architect can make the elevation. Here allow me to observe that an architect would often do well to covsult his wife as to the ground and chamber plan ; I find the ladies are better judges of the comfort and convenience of domestic arrangements than even the architect himself. Should you consider these observations fair, per- haps you witl be kind enough to give them a place in your publication.—I am, &e., March 18. HlovsEHOLDER.
Srr,—The doorway to breakfast-room; ditto to dining-room ; ditto to drawing-room; five doorways to bedrooms; one ditto to dressing-room—in each and all of these the door opens direct in upon the fireplaces, which is decidedly wrong and misplaced for comfort and convenience. These fireplaces all require revision. For what object or purpose are there two fireplaces in bedroom over the scullery ? W. Austr. LONDON POLICE-COURTS AND STATIONS. Srmr,—On many occasions, after quitting new buildings, erected in what is termed the modern style of architecture, I have been at a loss to per- suade myself that the many facilities now in exis- tence for acquiring a knowledge of their profession have been taken advantage of by the modern school of architects. I haye been unable to discover in the works of some of them the very faintest evidence that they have studied their profession at all, and have been obliged to conclude that the numberless works on the subject of architecture now to be ob- tained in so accessible a form—that the rapid and cheap channels now open for visiting and studying the architecture of distant cities—that the museums and exhibitions devoted to the art have, one and all, been utterly without fruit inthe improvement of the tastes, ideas, and abilities of some of the men who now have the privilege to disfigure the streets of London. Under this category need not be included, of course, those gentlemen of the Gothic school, so notorious for their affected quaintness, or for their strong adherence to the very Medieval style; the gentlemen of the notches and chamfers, the gentle- men of the height of the shaft of a column equal to the height of its cap, the gentlemen of the windows placed exactly where they are wanted to give light, &e., &e. It is to the works of a less mighty set of men, professionally, that I wish now to invite your attention. The buildings about to be mentioned are not, perhaps, in themselves of great importance, but it is to these smaller works that we should look for evidence of the powers of their designers, and it was with the impression that some useful hints might be obtained that I recently made a pilgrimage to some of the Police-courts lately erected in the metro- olis. F When an architect is employed by a public body, such as the police authorities, to erect a number of buildings scattered here and there over London, one might reasonably think that he would use his best powers to distinguish them by a character of his own, to individualise them, so to speak, and to make them such as he could with pride and satisfaction point to as his works. There is, it is true, about these police-courts a decided individuality, but, un- fortunately, it is of an objectionable nature. A Police-court, which serves also as a residence for some of the officials, should, in its design, combine the dignity of the law with the quiet and unobtru- sive appearance of a dwelling-house. These Police- courts are not used for the perpetual, or even leng- thened, imprisonment of malefactors, and therefore the necessity does not exist for repulsively heavy and gloomy exteriors, particularly when they form,
