294
with a wooden panelled screen dividing off a passage at the front entrance, and a raised dais at the other end. This old hall, which was 37ft. long by 21ft. broad, was not open, as was often the case, to the second floor, but was of the same height as the other rooms—viz., 11ft. from floor te ceiling. The hall fireplace was somewhat similar in design to the others, but larger. The eastern wing, now used for stables and a coach-house, was divided origi- nally into three rooms only—that at the northern end, called perhaps, the “‘summer parlour,” 25ft. Sin. by 20ft., rather smaller than the ‘ winter parlour” to the south, which was 382ft. long. Although at present tenanted by horses—for whose comfort two doors had been broken through the walls at the end and at the side into the courtyard, and all the windows had been blocked up—this room could be perfectly pictured in its original grandeur. The brick jambs of the fireplace remained, with a bold semi-circular relieving arch; in the centre of this wing was a small ante-room. There were doorways from this, besides those leading into the two parlours on either side, into the upper end of the great hall, and into the turret stairs and hence to the courtyard, as well as an external door- way into the garden, disposed so as curiously to cut into a window, in order to destroy as little as possible the symmetrical arrangement on the outside. The eastern turret appeared to have been partially demolished the beginning of this century, and more completely so later on. A portion of the moulded brick handrail cut in the solid wall indi- cated the position of the steps. The first floor was arranged somewhat similarly to the one below, but the partition walls were not carried up in the eastern wing. There was next to nothing to show what was the arrangement of the second floor. The large chimney-stack over the old fireplace had five shafts; three of these served for the fireplaces below, but the other two were, to all appearance, sham. They were built over the space between the eastern turret stairs and the great hall chimney- breast, and carried. by an arch turned at the level of the first floor. Above the arch, therefore, as it was almost impossible it should be solid, was doubtless, a secret chamber. No entrance could be seen, but access was probably obtained from the flue above the fireplace of the first-floor room. The two chimney-shafts might have been designed with the double purpose of misleading an observer, and, at thesame time, of ventilating the chamber. ‘Porter’s,” the old house near Southend, bore so striking a resemblance to Eastbury, that it was worth a passing notice. The hall, porch, and lobby, together with two staircases, occupied the central portion of the building, and united the two wings, which appeared, as at Eastbury, to have been used on the one side as offices, and on the other as sitting rooms. At the angles were the staircases, not in separate brick turrets, but inside the building. One of these was comparatively modern, and possibly took the place of another old staircase, similar to the one remaining, which had solid wooden treads, framed into a circular newel, as at Eastbury. A small balustered opening in the partition wall of this staircase, gave borrowed light from a narrow passage running between it and the external wall. Immediately at the top of the stairs was the entrance to a bedroom, which still re- tained its old doorway, consisting of stout planks in } two thicknesses, furnished with the old wooden latch and bars. In somecircular panels high upin the wains- coting of the hall were some quaintly-carved heads of wood, coloured. Five or six feet up the chimney of the fireplace was a small secret chamber. Among the stone fireplaces was one singularly like that on the first floor of Eastbury. Passing to the exterior of Eastbury, it would be found on close examination that the windows and dormers were not arranged as symmetrically asat first sight appeared. On the west side, for instance, the spaces between the windows varied as much as 12in.; the centre of the two most southern windows did not coincide with the centre of the gable over, as was the case in the north end of this front, neither was the small dor- mer gable in the centre between the larger gables. The same irregularies existed in the east front, while in the north front, the parapets of the dormers were of a steeper pitch than the roof-line behind. There was at present nothing remaining of the gable finials, except a small portion of the panelled shaft forming the angle above the porch. Theengravings in Lyson’s “Environs of London,” 1766, and in Grose’s “ Antiquities,” 1780, showed them in different stages of decay. Ornamental chimney-stacks, more or less similar in detail to those at Eastbury, might be seen at Newport and Ridgewell, both in Essex and at Norman Cross, Hants; and one almost identical, but of later date, was existing, and perhaps still ex- isted, at Langridge, near Halling, in Kent. Some light iron brackets, originally supporting a semi-
THE BUILDING NEWS. round eaves gutter on the west side, were worthy of notice. The old glazing remained on the south window of the west wing on the second floor, and consisted of lead lights tied to iron stanchion-bars with lead bands; there was an iron casement to open in the centre light. Flat iron rods 3in. by in. thick, carried the bends of the windows and the transoms; in the case of the latter the stanchions passed through the irons and brickwork, and were in one piece from the head to the cill of the window. Curious small recesses in the garden wall, 5ft. Gin. from the ground, 154in.in height, 12in. in width, and 10}in. deep, were noticed, the author conjec- turing, from a passage in Lord Bacon’s “ Essay on Gardens,” that they were intended for receiving cages of birds. DISCUSSION. The CHarkMAN, in inviting discussion, said that another paper was to have been read by Mr. P. J. Marvin “ On Barking Convent Gateway,” being the descriptive sketch sent in with the drawings for which Mr. Peek’s third prize was awarded, but Mr. Marvin was absent, and in his absence it was not considered advisable to read the paper, which con- sisted very largely of a genealogical record of the various inhabitants and of a list of local benefactors. It was, therefore, proposed to ask the author to con- dense it, and it would be published, together with the paper read, in the ‘‘ Transactions.” Besides the prizes which had already been awarded in this competition, he had to announce that the Council, seeing that the drawings sent in were so unusually large in number and excellent in character, had awarded two other prizes in order to encourage similar competitions in future. These supplementary prizes had been awarded to sets of drawings, marked ‘“ Ex- celsior” and ‘‘ Queen Bess,” which were by Mr. Henry Avern and Mr. Walter L. Spiers respectively. Mr. H. W. Brewer said that the irregular bond observed in the brickwork at Eastbury House was also to be found in the north front of Hatfield House, which was rather remarkable, for although the north front was the most interesting part of that building, the rest of the brickwork showed both the Flemish and the so-called English bond. The irregular bond referred to was also very frequently to be met with in the South of Holland and in Flanders. Although throughout all Flanders the so-called English bond was found, the Flemish bond was rarely to be seen at all. He thought it very probable that the Flemish bond was originally used because it was more easy to carry out circular work in that bond than in what was called English bond. ° Mr. Roumrev said he was acquainted with East- bury House, and had been particularly struck by the extraordinary squareness and perfect character of its timbers, which must have come out of trees of enormous size. Mr. ParworrH inquired whether the paintings described as frescoes were really such, or whether they were merely paintings in distemper. Mr. Gavsrarrn suggested that the niches or nooks in the garden walls were intended for plaster casts, as at Montacute Hall and Ham House. Mr. Kixe said that the house near Southend— “ Porter’s”—was built by a citizen of London named Brown, about the same date as Eastbury, but he did not know whether or not by the same architect. Mr. Tuomas Morris suggested whether the niches might not be intended for receiving lanterns or lights at night. The usual vote of thanks to the author having been proposed and seconded, the Chairman said he quite concurred in the opinion of the author that the plastering described was of the same date as the building itself. He knew buildings of the same description, and of about the same date, in which the same mode of rendering the mullions with plaster had been followed. In Essex it was very common to have the external brick walls of cottages rendered with plaster and stamped all over with a very neat and elegant impress. He had been informed by a plasterer who still continued to do this kind of work that the plaster was simply composed of road drift and chalk lime, but it had certainly stood for two or three centuries perfectly well. As to the tiles being supported by oak-pins, unless Mr. Streatfield was quite sure upon the point, they were probably not of oak, but of some other wood. He had great pleasure in tendering the thanks of the Institute to Mr. Streattield for his interesting paper. Mr. SrREATEFIELD, in acknowledgment, said that he was mistaken in calling the paintings frescoes; they were merely painted in distemper. As for the pins carrying the tiles, he would not be certain that they were of oak, but they were certainly of wood.
VOLUNTARY ARCHITECTURAL EXAMINATION. Mr. EasriaxKe announced that five candidates had sent in papers for the Preliminary Examination, and the Examination would therefore take place as usual in May. In the Class of Proficiency only one can- didate had applied for Examination, and the Exami- nation in that class would not take place. The meeting then terminated. —>_——_ ARCHITECTURAL ASSOCIATION. Ke the ordinary general meeting on Friday even- ing last, Mr. Rowland Plumbe, President, in the chair, Messrs. W. H. Haynes and G. A. Audsley were elected members. Mr. Boyes, Librarian, having announced a large and valuable donation of books to the Library by Mr. Wyatt Papworth, the thanks of the Association to the donor were given by accla- mation. Mr. T. Rocer Sarru, F.R.1.B.A., read a paper on ARCHITECTURAL WRITING. After some preliminary remarks, in which the author explained that his subject embraced all that work in the way of writing which falls upon every architect and architectural student as part of his duty, and also architectural literature proper, he said that as regarded architecturai writing, or, indeed, any sort of writing, there was really only one lesson, or maxim, or principle, which he was desirous of putting forward, but it contained the secret of success in all writing. That principle was simply “Remember the reader.” Nothing seemed more simple or self-evident, yet half the people who wrote forgot the reader altogether; and of the other half who did remember him, the greater number con- stantly fell into error as to the mode in which to provide for his wants or suit his wishes. It was certainly necessary that a writer should have some- thing to say; but this circumstance was by no means essential to a certain sort of success. A prac- tised writer who had nothing to say, and who thoroughly adapted his saying of it to his readers, would be far more read than one who, full of infor— mation or thought, put pen to paper with an entire disregard of the readers whom he proposed te benefit or instruct. On architectural subjects a man might have three classes of readers—firstly, himself ; secondly, the persons with whom he did business ; thirdly, the public ; in each of which it was of the utmost importance to remember the reader. Firstly, as to writing for one’s self. Very few men did this with sufficient system and forethought. What one wanted in writing for one’s self was just to supply inevitable defects of memory. We required to sup- plement our memories by putting on paper the things which would be of most service to us in after life, and to do this so systematically that we should be readily able to turn to the fact or note which we re— quired when the opportunity of making use of it presented itself. Putting down everything in volu- minous ill-assorted memorandum books was worse than putting down nothing. It weakened the memory and filled the book-shelvyes with notebooks that were too numerous to be available. What was wanted was to skin the cream of one’s knowledge, and in some simple way to index it as ‘well as to note it down. Mr. Smith believed that a common- place book for such information as turned up in daily reading and practice, and a good carefully— written journal of every tour taken for the purposes of study, in which journal casual visits to buildings of interest might be described as they took place, would comprise what a student would find most use- ful torecord. Of the commonplace book it was not necessary to say much, except that he would avoid copying out of books into it, but would condense or abridge the information got from books, with, of course, a reference to the volume, page, and edition of the original. As to the journal, no memory re- tained vividly and exactly all that was learned or discovered during an examination of a building or other object of study. It was, therefore, very desi- rable to record on paper the impressions of the moment when an opportunity of learning something has pre- sented itself. Of course, by far the most valuable part of a student’s acquisitions must be those delineated in his sketchbook rather than his notebook and journal ; but still the study of a building (as of a book) was generally incomplete, if part of the facts acquired be not such as manuscript will best record. It was of the first importance to acquire the habit of cor- rectly, and yet graphically, describing a building which one had seen or studied, and such oppor- tunities, for example, as the visits paid on Saturdays by members of the Association to works in hand, ought to be followed by a short, clear, legible record of the facts learned, and the objects seen. It was by no means an easy thing to describe a building
|
