THE BUILDING NEWS.
and not to the apex. Theten or fifteen feet
of height in an English doorway is from the
floor to the crown of the arch—in a French
one it is from the floor to the springing, or
even toa lower point still. The lintel, too,
is undeniably convenient as regards the con-
struction and use of the wooden doors—and
some of our own Romanesque examples of
it have beauty enough to make us wonder
that it ever should have been abandoned.
The Prior’s Door, at Ely, with its figure
sculptured in the tympanum, and its beautiful
early seroll-work on arch and jambs, may
make us regret that its form is not more
familiar to our Pointed style. But though
in and after the Lancet period the flat lintel
was almost disused, our ancestors found more
than one substitute for it which harmonised
with the forms they preferred. The corbelled
lintel, or Carnarvon arch, like the plain one, was
rarely used amongst us after the twelfth cen-
tury—at least with a pointedarchaboveit. But
specimens of it do exist, and in some of themthe
corbels are so wide, and the straight part so
short, that a sort of vertical or aspiring cha-
racter is given even to this very horizontal
piece of construction. From this to the flat
trefoiled arch was buta step. It needed only
to scoop out the middle of the flat stone, and
the trefoil was at once produced, and so
shaped, though not often so jointed, we may
frequently see it. We are speaking of cases
where there is still a pointed arch rising high
above the trefoil one, and leaving, therefore,
an upright surface of masonry in the space
between them. Again, we may find a circular
arch, and insome cases even asegmental one,
doing duty beneath a tympanum. ‘The latter
may be noticed in a very richly-moulded
example on the south side of the cloisters at
Peterborough. The outer arch of three orders
is equilateral; the inner one, which has been
profusely adorned with carving, wants about
eight inches of being a semicircle. In the
spandrel between the two is a quatrefoil panel,
and a couple of grotesque animals with Karly
English scroll ornament. At the village
church of Woodford, in Northamptonshire, the
inner doorway of the south porch has a good
trefoiled lower arch—a semicircular moulding
over it, beautifully covered—asegmental hood-
mould, with good terminations of foliage, and
a pointed wall-rib enclosing the whole. An
upright trefoiled niche, and a couple of
foliated trefoil panels, relieve the intermediate
surface. The west doorway at Higham Fer-
rars is well known and deeply interesting.
Its seulptured medallions raise it into a higher
class of art than is usually found in our subor-
dinate churches, and it is a pity that so sug-
gestive an example should at present have
been without influence on modern work. At
the same place there is a small door with a
pointed arch trefoiled on the soffit, and leaving,
therefore, no tympanum or stone spandrel.
Doorways of this sort are far from rare ; there
is a good one at Keyston, in Huntingdon-
shire, with jamb-shafts and effective mould-
ings. Both these last are small, their open-
ings being less than 3ft. wide. Even London,
poor as itis in ancient detail, can show some-
thing worth examination in the matter of
doorways, as any one may see by walking
round the cloisters of Westminster Abbey.
Amongst modern architects, Mr. Goldie has
been one of the most successful in this depart-
ment, as witness the fine portals of S. Wil-
frid’s, York, and the pro-Cathedral at Ken-
sington. Mr. Scott, however, at S. Michael’s,
Cornhill ; and since at S. Mary’s, Stoke New-
ington ; at Exeter College, Oxford; S. John’s,
Cambridge ; and in many other places, has
done more than any one else to show us by
example what doorways are capable of being
made. Mr. Street’s doors are usually less
imposing, though, like the rest of his work,
they are full of thought and interest; and
there are other architects, who, though they
may affect a very quiet and unassuming
treatment, add to it a certain life and cha-
racter and individuality which prevent it from
bulk of the profession, doorways do not seem to us to receive as much study as they de- serve. The opportunities which they present for designare, to all appearance, not realised, and two or three types are repeated over and over again as if there was no alternative to them. We have only touched the boundaries of a subject which it would take volumes to deal with thoroughly; but it may not be useless even to have indicated its magnitude, and to have reminded our readers that the possibilities of modern architecture in this direction, far from being exhausted, seem as yet hardly to be understood. os ARCHITECTS AND QUANTITY SURVEYORS. Ww regard to the seven inquiries ad- dressed by the Committee of the Archi- tectural Conference of last year to architects, and given in the Bumping News of March 29, we would impress upon all who are in- vited, the importance of sending replies, as the interests at stake are so very considerable. We are not sure that the statement of the Committee represents with complete accuracy the usages of the profession, and insuch cases correction must be valuable. In really large works the preparation of the bills of quanti- ties ready for pricing by the competing builders, is a work of great and patient la- bour, consuming months of time and costing thousands of pounds, though it is but rarely that the actual figures transpire. At one time the architect. used to lay his plans and specification before the competitors, each of whom extracted his own quantities and particulars, and was, of course, respon- sible for the result. But this system entailed so much labour, and was so open to accident and disparity, that the nomination of a single surveyor by the whole of the builders, for dealing with the unalterable facts of the case, was an improvement that soon became po- pular, and met, we believe, with the early countenance of Sir Robert Smirke. To archi- tects, indeed, the scheme was recommended by especial convenience, but it soon presented a pecuniary aspect. How was the surveyor to be paid? At first, no doubt, each com- petitor relieved from the task would be ready to contribute his share, but it was ultimately seen to be more equitable to treat the ex- pense as part of the prime cost of the work, and include it in the bill, so that it might be defrayed by the successful competitor, out of the first instalment on the contract. While this practice was in a state of innovation, it must have been prudent to inform principals of its effect, but now it is probably suffi- ciently based upon custom to render that unnecessary. Now, however, that the prin- cipal pays, he may be possibly entitled to ask, how much? ‘The surveyor’s responsi- bility is, we should say, an after-growth. Builders, knowing their own liability tomake mistakes, would not look for immunity in others; but as surveyors became affluent they would throw out a bait of the sort for the sake of patronage, and to keep business in their own hands. Such an understanding be- tween surveyor and builder is not free from objection. ‘Lhe responsibility never goes be- yond an implied assurance to the builder against deficiencies. ‘There is no guarantee to the employer against excess. In order that he may be protected, the opportunity is given him to appoint a joint surveyor, but surely it cannot be intended to make this, the em- ployer’s nominee, also responsible to the builder! The dimensions ought, in fact, to be truly and impartially taken, without injury or favour to one side or the other. This re- quires that the surveyors should be wholly free from personal liability; for if they are open to a penalty for inaccuracy in one direction only, will they not, for safety’s sake, take care that the balance shall be on the other? ‘Then, asto a suggestion for taking becoming tame or trite. But, from the great | the quantities by a surveyor named by the
architect, and responsible to the employer, so
as to set the builder free, it is impossible to
conceive a more prolific source of trouble
and expense for the employer than this. The
architect's nominee may not be a man of
capital or skill either. No one possessing
both would accept the conditions, for it would
be wonderful indeed if discrepancies of some
sort did not amount to more than the sur-
veyor’s commission. It would haye to be
asked whether the quantities or the specifica-
tion should be followed, since a responsible
surveyor would be likely to put forward
noyel pretensions, and he must be a party to
the contract, or to a subsidiary agreement
with the employer. Perhaps, in such a case,
the architect had better retire, and leave the
builder and surveyor with an open contract
to be perpetually discussed at the employer’s
expense. It has also been proposed that the
bills of quantities should be attached to the
contract, but for what purpose? If as evi-
dence of the amount of work, the contract
must be open, whichseems unfair to him who
finds the money, and regards an uncertain
amount as no contract at all. But, if it be
appended for the sake of its clearer and
more detailed representation of the work,
it becomes a standing reproach to the
architect, who would do well to em-
body its advantages in an improved speci-
fication, and so dispense with it as a
separate schedule, that must entail expense.
The builder and the architect may, if thought
necessary, each receive a copy of the dimen-
sions for the sake of information, but not
for the purpose of disturbing the amount.
Some architects, it is said, are in the habit of
taking the quantities themselves ; but to this
step there are the strongest objections. They
ought, at any rate, to obtain the previous
sanction of their employers, and be paid by
them. The existence of money relations
between architect and builder are utterly
anomalous and improper. They are pre-emi-
nently so, unless sanctioned by the employer,
whose responsibility may be found to turn
upon the point; while to throw upon the
builder the task of verifying quantities, is to
tender to him worthless services that he
must afterwards perform for himself. There
is, indeed, much contained in the series of
propositions issued on this subject that de- -
mands the most decided and unmistakable
action on the part of the Institute, now that
it has been brought in so prominent a manner
under its adjudication.
It is remarked that greater uniformity of _
practice in quantity-taking is to be desired ;
and this defect is only to be repaired by
keeping in mind that no one is qualified for
the duty who cannot take on paper the same
steps that the workman must afterwards
follow. Practical knowledge, too little cul-
tivated in the modern school, is the grand
qualification of the surveyor.
——___>—_————_
NOTES ON EARTHWORK.—UL
rMHE centre line having been staked out,
and the heights of the stakes above the
formation level ascertained, the side widths
are to be laid off. To enable this to be done
three things must be prescribed—viz., the
width of the cutting and embankment at the
formation level ; the rate at which the sides
are to be sloped off—ie., the ratio of the
horizontal width to the vertical height of the
slope; and the width of the cess at the top
of the slope of the cutting and foot of the
embankment, to be left for fencing and other
uses. The width at the formation level is
generally 30ft. for a double line of way ; but
it varies from that width 1ft. or 2ft., more or
less, according to circumstances. ‘The slopes
vary from 1 to 1 to 3 to 1 im general, and
occasionally more or less than these rates.
The usual width of the cess is 9ft. in the
open country, which allows 7ft. 6in. for a
ditch and quick fence, and temporary post
and rail fence, and a pathway of 18in. along
